The main legal point established is the requirement for a judgment to address crucial aspects and provide the necessary findings, failing which the matter may need reconsideration.

Heard Sri Kulshrestha and Sri Agarwal, learned Counsel in support of this writ petition. No one appeared for the respondents.

2. Case was taken up on the earlier dates also and on those dates also nobody appeared. Today an intimation slip given to Shri Tripathi, learned Advocate was shown to the Court about giving of notice of case being listed and being taken up today. Statement was also made that Shri Bohra, learned Advocate has refused to accept the notice.

3. In view of the aforesaid, matter was taken up in the revision of the list.

4. For disposal of the matter facts in brief will suffice.

5. Present writ petition arises out of decision given by the Court below in the suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under section 229-B and 209 of U. P. Z. A. &l. R. Act. Suit filed by the petitioner side was initially decreed but matter was remanded by the first Appellate Court. On remand the Trial Court dismissed the suit. First appeal was also dismissed and then second appeal was partly allowed and petitioner side was granted cotenancy rights upon which being aggrieved for claim of sole right this writ petition has been filed.

6. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner as canvassed are to the effect-

(i) The effect of filing of earlier suit by the defendant side and the judgment given therein has not been considered. (ii) On account of stand of the defendant side in the earlier suit and the findings given it will operate as res-judicata and estoppal to the claim of defendant. (iii) The finding about the identity of the land to be not been broken is wrong and perverse. (iv) Class 9 entry which can be said to be basis of the claim of the defendant-respondent is without following any procedure.

7. To elaborate the aforesaid, submission is that earlier suit was filed by the defendant respondent under section 229-B of U. P. Z. A. &l. R. Act claiming sole right over the land which was dismissed on 28. 10. 1966 and thereafter on filing appeal suit was got withdrawn with the liberty of filing fresh suit but no fresh suit was filed and therefore, in view of provisions of Order XXIII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code and in view of the decisions given by the Apex Court reported in AIR 1993 SC, 958 and 1999 AWC, Vol. 3, 1793 the finding given against the plaintiff in that suit will operate as res-judicata and estoppal.

8. It is pointed out that this aspect was specifically taken in ground No. 12 of memo of appeal before the Board of Revenue but that has not been considered on account of which petitioner has suffered serious prejudice. It is argued that in the earlier suit there is clear finding that present petitioner is sole Bhumidhar of the land and the plaintiff of that suit as claimed is not Sirdar. It is submitted that there was an entry of Marfat in favour of the defendant side and that cannot confer any right and at the same time from the documents which has been brought on record it is clear that several plots were added in the plots which were recorded in 1336 Fasli and therefore finding about continuity of identity is also perverse. Submission as noticed above were referred in the light of the documents and materials so available on record.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is to decide claim of parties.

10. There is no dispute about the fact that suit was filed by the respondent side and that was numbered as O. S. No. 75 of 1966. in which he claimed to be the sole owner/sirdar of the land. The suit was dismissed by giving detailed judgment dated 28. 10. 1966 and it was held that plaintiff is not Sirdar. In appeal liberty was given to withdraw the suit with permission to file fresh suit but that was not filed. There was an observation in the earlier judgment that it is always open for the defendant to file suit for eviction and it is therefore, claim is that plaintiff petitioner filed present suit for eviction and at the same time on account of wrong entry of Class 9 which came in the meantime for declarat