Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents, Sri B.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Sri M.K.Yadav, learned counsel for the gaon sabha.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 22.12.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (II) Varanasi Division Varanasi in Revision No. C- 2014140000450 of 2014 (Surendra Singh v. Vibhuti Narain Singh and others) and order dated 17.2.2014 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Zamania Ghazipur in Suit No. 146/7-8-13 (Vibhuti Narain v. Shyam Chandra) filed under Section 176 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short ‘the Act’).

3. By order dated dated 17.2.2014, the Sub-Divisional Officer has directed to prepare the preliminary decree, whereas by the subsequent order dated 22.12.2014, revision filed by the petitioner against the preliminary decree dated 17.2.2014 has been dismissed.

4. The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondent No. 3 has filed a suit under Section 176 of the Act, which was numbered as Suit No. 146/7-8-13 (Vibhuti Narain v. Shyam Chandra) impleading Shyam Chandra and Surendra Singh as defendants. In the aforesaid suit, notices were issued and the parties have put in their appearance. The defendant No. 2 has filed written statement whereas the petitioner has not filed written statement and in absence of the written statement of the petitoner, preliminary decree was ordered to be prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17.2.2014.

5. Learned counsel for the petitoner has invited attention of the Court towards the order-sheet of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer. In his submissions in the aforesaid suit, eight dates were fixed. On the first date i.e. on 6.9.2013, the defendant/respondent No. 2 has filed written statement. No written statement however was filed by the present petitoner. On 13.12.2013, vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the present petitioner by one Sri Mohd. Imran. Thereafter the date was fixed on 17.1.2014. On 17.1.2014, due to lawyer’s strike, the Court proceeding did not commence and the date was fixed for 7.2.2014. On 7.2.2014, again the lawyers were on strike and 28.2.2014 was fixed.

6. It is contended that counsel for the petitioner after noting the date of 28.2.2014 the counsel left the Court and it is thereafter the application was filed by the plaintiff for preponing the date alongwith the written argument, thereupon the date was preponed by fixing 14.2.2014. On 14.2.2014, no order could be passed and it is on 17.2.2014, the order has been passed for preparing the preliminary decree. The submission of learned counsel for the petitoner is that when the petitioner went in the Court for filing written statement alongwith his counsel, then he was told by the reader of the Court to first of all examine the order-sheet and thereafter file written statement. After inspection of the order-sheet, it transpired that the date was preponed on the application of the respondent Vibhuti Narian Singh to which no notice was given to the petitioner. After coming to know the order dated 17.2.2014, the petitioner has filed revision before the Additional Commissioner (II) Varanasi Division Varanasi stating all those facts, which have been stated here in this writ petition. In the submission of Sri Singh, the Additional Commissioner has although noted the statement of facts but without recording any finding thereon has dismissed the revision. In the submission of Sri Singh, preliminary decree is an ex parte one and is outcome of the clandestine approach of the plaintiff as well as the Court.

7. Sri B.P. Singh, who appears for the plaintiff, submits that it is the dispute between the real uncle and nephew and the preliminary decree was prepared in accordance with law. In his submissions, since October, 2013, the petitoner