JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ankit Pandey for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no. 4. In terms of the earlier order dated 19.11.2020, the learned Senior Counsel has filed a copy of the rejoinder affidavit which is taken on record.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been finally heard at the admission stage itself.

3. A short question is involved in the aforesaid petition. Order dated 26.02.2020 is under challenge whereby the Additional Commissioner (Admin.), Ayodhya Division in Case No. 832 of 2008-09 has allowed the amendment application of the private respondent no. 4.

4. Assailing the aforesaid order, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Revisional Court has not noticed the submissions of the petitioner and in a cursory manner has allowed the amendment holding that amendment is due on account of typographical omission which does not change the nature of the proceedings.

5. It has been submitted that by means of the amendment, the opposite party no. 4 is seeking to introduce a fresh controversy which was not available to be challenged especially when the issue of limitation was first to be decided.

6. Elaborating his submissions, Sri Pandey has submitted that the husband of the petitioner namely Ram Charitra had filed a Regular Suit No. 119-319 under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect of the property in question. The aforesaid suit was decided on the basis of a compromise which was duly verified on 16.12.1975 and thereafter the suit came to be decreed in terms of the aforesaid compromise on 19.08.1976.

7. Sri Pandey submits that the judgment and decree passed in the said Regular Suit was never challenged and the same became final and the name of Sri Ram Charitra was also recorded in the revenue record on the basis of the aforesaid decree.

8. It has been submitted that the opposite party no. 4 after 27 years instituted a civil suit bearing No. 262 of 2003 for declaration of his rights over the same land in question. The said suit was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.10.2006. Thereafter the opposite party no. 4 made an application on 04.12.2003 seeking restoration/recall of the decree which was passed in the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act decided on 19.08.1976.

9. It is further submitted that the SDO by means of order dated 20.11.2008 has rejected the recall application moved by the opposite party no. 4. The same was assailed by filing a Revision and the said Revision was admitted on 29.01.2001 and notices were issued. The petitioner in pursuance thereof had put in appearance. Thereafter the opposite party no. 4 after 9 years moved an application for amendment in the memo of Revision with the prayer that he wanted to assail the order dated 19.08.1976 and 03.09.1976 passed in Regular Suit No. 119/319. This application for amendment has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division by means of the impugned order dated 26.02.2020. It has further been informed that there is no interim order in the instant petition, however, the opposite party no. 1 has also commenced the hearing of the Revision on merits and therefore it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter may finally be heard and decided.

10. Sri S.P. Tiwari while refuting the aforesaid submissions has submitted that the SDO while rejecting the application for recall by means of order dated 24.11.2008 has also touched the issue regarding the right of the opposite party no. 4 and held that it had no right in the property. It has been submitted that, the opposite party no. 4 claims right in the property in question on the basis of a Will said to be executed by Ram Naresh and Bhagwati. It has been submitted that since the merit as well as the question of limitation has been touched, therefore, it is necessary for the opposite