Hon’ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Arun Kumar Srivastav, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9.

2. The present writ petition was filed in the year, 2004. From a perusal of the order-sheet it appears that till date the case was never comprehensively argued by any counsel for the petitioner and therefore, notices have not yet been issued to respondent Nos. 3 to 7, who would have been contesting respondents in the writ petition. Since 2011, the case has been continuously adjourned either on the oral request of the counsel for the petitioner or on illness slips sent on his behalf. Today again, the counsel for the petitioner requested for an adjournment to enable him to file a supplementary-affidavit, which if permitted, would have been the fourth supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner in the case. However, as the matter is pending since, 2004, the Court has proceeded to hear the case on merits to consider whether it was a fit case for issuing notice to respondent Nos. 3 to 7.

3. Counsel for the petitioner states that second supplementary-affidavit annexing certain documents was filed by him in the present writ petition in 2012. As the said supplementary-affidavit was not on record, therefore, a copy of the said supplementary-affidavit has been supplied by the counsel for the petitioner to the Court, which is taken on record as certain documents annexed with the supplementary-affidavit have been referred by the counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments.

4. The facts of the case are that Asharfi Lal, i.e. petitioner, Ram Singh i.e. respondent No. 7 and Khem Chandra i.e. father of the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 were the sons of one Bhola Ram. Sibia was the widow of Bhola Ram and the mother of Asharfi Lal, Ram Singh and Khem Chandra. Bhola Ram was the tenure holder of disputed plot No. 41. After the death of Bhola Ram, the names of Ram Singh, Khem Chandra and Sibia were recorded in the revenue record and therefore, the petitioner in 1976 filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Act, 1950’) for a decree declaring that he was a co-tenure holder of the disputed plot alongwith Ram Singh, Khem Chandra and Mst. Sibia. The original number of the aforesaid case has not been disclosed in the writ petition, but it was subsequently renumbered as Case No. 75/87-88. Ram Singh, Khem Chandra and Sibia were defendants in the aforesaid case. In Case No. 75/87-88 Ram Singh filed a written statement admitting the case of the petitioner but Khem Chandra contested the case and filed a written statement denying the plea of the petitioner. The claim of Khem Chandra was based on a registered Will dated 9.3.1970 allegedly executed by Bhola Ram in favour of Ram Singh, Khem Chandra and Sibia bequeathing 1/3 share in the disputed Plot No. 41 to each of the aforesaid beneficiaries of the Will. The Trial Court i.e. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as, ‘S.D.M.’), vide its judgment and order dated 31.12.1979 dismissed the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 31.12.1979, petitioner filed an appeal under Section 331 of the Act, 1950, which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner Moradabad Division, Moradabad vide his judgment and order dated 29.4.1983 and the matter was remanded back to the S.D.M. for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

5. While the appeal under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 was pending before the first appellate Court, Mst. Sibia died. Before her death, Mst. Sibia had executed a Will dated 17.12.1977 bequeathing her share in certain properties, including the disputed plot, to the petitioner and on the basis of the said Will the petitioner filed a civil suit being Original Suit No. 653/1982 before the Civil Court, Rampur for partition of the sui