NURU Vs. NAVI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

(2.) These three writ petitions have been filed by the defendants- petitioners assailing the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer dated 25.05.2016 and the order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the Board of Revenue whereby reply to the counter claim was taken on record by the SDO in a revenue suit filed by the non-petitioners seeking partition and permanent injunction.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the reply to the suit and counter claim was filed in 2008 before the concerned SDO however, the reply to the counter claim was filed only on 30.01.2017. Learned counsel submits that the reply to the counter claim was highly belated and the same ought not to have been taken on record. He further submits that the revision petition preferred against the said order has already been erroneously dismissed by the Board of Revenue.