The Court's decision emphasized the refusal to set aside impugned orders due to technical irregularities, as any interference would amount to restoring an equally illegal order passed by the Trial Court.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. –

Heard Sri Ram Kishore Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anuj Kumar for the respondent no.4, Gaon Sabha and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 29.03.2016 and 19.05.2016 passed by the respondent nos.2 and 1 respectively.

3. It appears that the father of the petitioners filed a suit No.9 of 2009-10 under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act seeking a declaration regarding plot no.2992/2 area 3 bigha situated in village Ladaka Purwa, Pargana and District Banda. This plot was recorded in the revenue records as Bihad. It was the plaint case that the land in suit was sirdar land of the plaintiff, but due to a mistake, the same was recorded as 'bihad' in 1384 Fasali and therefore the suit.

4. It appears that the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2010 decreed the suit holding the plaintiff to be bhumidhar thereof.

5. It is alleged that the original plaintiff died and thereafter his heirs, the petitioners were mutated over the plot in question in the year 2010 itself.

6. On 28.03.2016, an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC along with a delay condonation application was filed by the State/Gaon Sabha. This application was allowed on 29.03.2016. The said order dated 29.03.2016 has been affirmed, when the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 19.05.2016.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside without any notice or information to the petitioners. There was no affidavit in support of the delay condonation application. The original plaintiff was dead and no notice were issued to the petitioners, the recorded tenure holders duly mutated on the death of their father, the original plaintiff.

8. It has additionally been submitted that the State had filed its written statement in the suit and had been heard prior to the passing of the judgment and decree. The same was therefore not ex parte and could not have been recalled. On the grounds mentioned above, the petitioners preferred a revision which has been dismissed, hence this writ petition.

9. Even before this Court, the submissions noticed above have been reiterated by learned counsel for the petitioners.

10. In view of the submissions made, the record of the suit was summoned and the same was produced and has been perused.

11. Perusal of the original record of the suit reveals that summons were issued to the Gaon Sabha and State of U.P. fixing 15.10.2009. Written statement filed on behalf of State of U.P. is also available on record. It appears to have been filed on 28.10.2009. It appears that on the very same day as many as six issues were framed in the suit.

12. It appears from the perusal of the record that the plaintiff filed certain documents namely the Khataunis of 1360-61F, 1375-77 Fasali, 1378-80 Fasli, 1381-83 Fasali. Subsequently, on 03.11.2009 an application was filed that these documents were not readable and therefore the original record pertaining to 1359 F-1384F and 1386F be summoned.

13. It appears that on this application, relevant records were summoned and the Assistant Record Keeper appeared with these records on 25.11.2009 and his statement was recorded. Thereafter the suit was decreed vide judgment dated 05.04.2010. This judgment and decree was sought to be recalled at the instance of the State/Gaon Sabha on the ground that it was ex parte and this recall application has been allowed and the order affirmed by the Revisional Court.

14. In this connection, it would be relevant to note that the order sheet of 29.08.2010, the date on which, the suit is said to have been heard finally, records that only the plaintiff was present. The order sheet is categorical in this regard. Even the final order passed does not mention that either the counsel for the Gaon Sabha or the State was actu