Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri B.P. Singh learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. A.K. Roy for the respondent 3 to 5, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. As noted in the order passed by this Court yesterday, the respondent No. 6 has already been served with a notice but no one has put in appearance on its behalf. Affidavits have been exchanged between the contesting parties and the matter therefore with their consent is being proceeded with to be disposed of finally.

3. The dispute giving rise to the present writ petition arises out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 filed by the petitioners for a declaration in respect of the holding in question. The suit was dismissed on 18th September, 1985. An appeal was preferred against the same which was allowed on 6th May, 1987 and the matter was remanded back to the trial for decision afresh. A copy of the said judgment is Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondents. After remand the suit was decreed on 11th September, 1987, copy whereof is Annexure 2 to this writ petition.

4. The contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the sons of late Habibulla who was defendant No. 3 in the original suit. These three respondents alongwith the others are alleged to have filed a restoration application on 28th May, 1999 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 11th September, 1987. A copy of the said application has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. This restoration application is said to have been dismissed in default on 11th February, 2000. Another application, to restore the restoration application so dismissed, is said to have been filed on 23rd February, 2000 which was allowed on 16th August, 2000. Consequently, the restoration application which had been dismissed in default is stated to have been heard on merits and finally rejected on 28th December, 2001.

5. Thereafter in the year 2010, three applications are filed dated 29th January, 2010, 5th June, 2010 and 18th June, 2010. These are applications of restoration including the restoration application filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. This application is the main application filed in the year 2010 dated 29.1.2010 praying for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 11.9.1987 and the final decree dated 14.9.1987.

6. It is these applications which have been rejected on 23rd August, 2010 whereafter the respondents appear to have filed a revision against the same before the Board of Revenue. The Board admitted the revision and passed an order including staying of the operation of the judgment and decree dated 11th September, 1987.

7. Questioning the correctness and the legality of the said proceedings the petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in the suit have filed the present writ petition on the ground that the restoration application dated 29th January, 2010 and its filing and the subsequent proceedings as well as the entertaining of the revision by the Board of Revenue, are a clear abuse of process of the Court, inasmuch as, the proceedings have already attained finality with the passing of the order dated 28.12.2001. After the petition was filed, an interim order came to be passed on 28th April, 2011 staying the operation of the order of the Board of Revenue whereafter the contesting respondents have filed their counter-affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit to which the petitioners have filed their rejoinder.

8. Sri Singh learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the restoration application dated 28th May, 1999 having been rejected on 28th December, 2001 a second restoration application on the same set of facts was not maintainable and clearly barred by the principles of res judicata. The trial Court therefore rightly rejected the same and as such the Board of Revenue while entertaining the revision against the same, committed a manifest error