An ex-parte decree that has become final is binding on the parties and operates as res judicata.

B.L. Yadav, J.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 16-3-74 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Deoria u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), whereby the revision of the Petitioner was dismissed. The revision was tiled against the order passed by the Consolidation Officer allowing the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the contesting Respondents. By this petition the Petitioners have prayed for a writ of Certiorari for quashing the aforesaid two orders.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that in respect of the plots in dispute, which have been given in Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit, a suit u/s 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was filed by the Petitioners against the State Government and the Gaon Sabha, which was Suit No. 40 of 1966-Deep Chand v. Gaon Sabha. This suit was ultimately decreed ex-parte on 19-4-66. Against that ex-parte decree a restoration application was filed by one Habibullah, a member of the Land Management Committee. On this application the restoration was earlier allowed, but later on a revision was filed by the Petitioners before the Board of Revenue, which was ultimately allowed by an order dated 29-6-77 and the ex-parte decree was maintained and the order of the trial court dated 3-2-72 setting aside the expaite decree was itself set aside and the restoration application was dismissed. The order of the Board of Revenue dated 29-6-77 has been filed as Annexure-I to the supplementary affidavit filed by the Petitioners. Before the revision could be decided by the Board of Revenue the consolidation operation commenced in the village Damodarpur, Tappa Salempur Pargana Salempur Majhauli, District Deoria, where the plots in dispute are situate by issuing a notification u/s 4 of the Act. In pursuance of the decree in favour of the Petitioners passed in a suit u/s 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act, the Petitioners were recorded in the basic years as Bhumidhar in respect of the plots in dispute. During the consolidation operation the Petitioners were also found to be in possession and no objection was filed by anybody. The dispute, however, in the present petition appears to have been confined only to plot No. 121/2 area 07 acre, plot No. 123/2 area 20 acre and plot No. 137 area 08 acre as stated in para 3 of the writ petition.

3. A much belated objection was filed by the Respondents u/s 9-A(2) of the Act along with an application to condone the delay u/s 5 of the Act. The title of the Petitioners was also denied in respect of the plots in dispute. The delay was, however, condoned by an order of the Consolidation Officer vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Petitioners preferred a revision and there the correctness of the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was challenged and it was also urged that the judgment and decree dated 19-4-66 passed in Suit No. 40 of 1966 filed u/s 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act would operate as res-judicata even though it may have been ex-parte decree. But the Deputy Director of Consolidation repelled the contention of the Petitioner with the observation that the delay has been correctly condoned and that as the judgment and decree u/s 229-B was ex-parte, hence, it would not operate as res-judicata. The revision of the Petitioners was consequently dismissed by the impugned order (Annexure-2 to the petition). It is against these two orders that the present petition has been filed.

4. Sri Sadanand Shukla, learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the judgment and decree dated 19-4-66 passed in the suit u/s 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act, even though ex-parte, was upheld even by the Board of Revenue by its judgment and order dated 29-6-77 and the revision preferred by the Petitioners was allowed and the application filed by the contesting Respondents for setting aside the ex-parte decree was dismiss