Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Matter is taken in revised cause list.

2. None appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 6 to 8.

3. Heard Sri Yogesh Keserwani, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 to 3, Sri Mahfooz Alam, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 4 and 5/contesting Opposite Parties and perused the record.

4. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by opposite party No. 1/Additional Commissioner (Administration) Lucknow Division, Lucknow in Appeal No. 2 of 2008-09 (Chaudhary Haider Husain and others v. Abdul Mazid and others) under Section 13 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (herein after referred as “Act”) thereby rejecting the petitioners’ application under Order XLI Rule 27(b) of CPC.

5. The undisputed facts of the present case are that in a ceiling proceedings arising out of the Act and order dated 19.6.1992 (Annexure 9) has been passed by Prescribed Authority (Ceiling), Rae Bareli, challenged by opposite parties No. 4 and 5 alongwith deceased Abdul Mueed by filing an appeal No. 6 of 1994-95 under Section 13 of the Act, allowed by order dated 30.12.1997 and the matter was remanded to the prescribed authority to decide a fresh taking into consideration the objection in regard to surplus land on merit, taking into consideration that after closure of consolidation proceedings whatever land of original tenant falls under Ceiling Limit(surplus land) should be taken by offering choice.

6. Thereafter, by order dated 3.9.1998, the prescribed authority decided the matter, challenged by filing two appeals, namely, Appeal No. 5 of 1997-98(Smt. Yasmin Nuzhat w/o Azhar Hssain v. Asghar Hussain and others) and Appeal No. 6 of 1997-98(Abdul Majeed and others v. State of U.P.). By order dated 14.5.2002, the appellate authority/Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, rejected both the appeals.

7. Order dated 14.5.2002 passed in Ceiling Appeal No. 5 of 1997-98 challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1834(MS) of 2002, allowed vide order dated 12.6.2002, setting aside the order dated 14.5.2002 with the following directions :

“In the result, the writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 14.5.2002 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the case is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow to restore the Appeal No. 5 of 1997-1998 to its original number and decide the same after considering the judgments passed by this Court as well as by other competent Courts. The Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow shall decide the appeal in accordance with law within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced.”

8. Accordingly, the matter came up for consideration before appellate authority and by order dated 16.10.2002, the appellate authority set aside the order dated 3.9.1998 passed by prescribed authority and remanded both the appeals to the prescribed authority to decide afresh in accordance with law.

9. Thereafter, an order dated 24.1.2009 has been passed by prescribed authority against the petitioners challenged by filing Appeal under Section 13 of the Act before appellate authority/Additional Commissioner (Administration) Lucknow Division, Lucknow, registered as Appeal No. 2 of 2008-2009 (Chaudhary Haider Hussain and others v. Abdul Majid and others).

10. During the pendency of said appeal, an application on behalf of petitioners under Order XLI Rule 27 (b) CPC moved in order to bring the certain documents, namely, (a) Original agreement dated 5.12.1951 between Mst. Hajra Khatoon and Chaudhari Muzaffaruddin and (b) Order dated 29.12.1951 passed by Parganadhikari, Maharajganj, District Rae bareli in case No. 127 of 1951 (Mst. Harza Bibi v. Chaudhari Muzaffariuddin) on the basis of said compromise.

11. By order dated