JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 13, Sri Mohan Singh, Advocate, who has received notice on behalf of respondent No. 12/Gaon Sabha concerned and Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey, Advocate, appearing for the respondent No. 4, who has also filed his Valakatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 11 in the Court today, which is taken on record.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the respondent No. 1/Board of Revenue, U.P., at Lucknow in Second Appeal registered as Case No. SA/205/2022/Ayodhya, Computerized Case No. R2022042300205 (Mirza Khalid Beg and others vs. Mirza Shahid Beg) filed by the private respondents Nos. 4 to 11 under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short "Act of 1950").

3. By order dated 15.05.2023, the second appeal has been allowed at the admission stage and the matter has been remanded back to the trial Court concerned for deciding the case afresh on merits after framing the relevant issues.

4. The brief facts of the case, which are required for disposal of this petition, are to the effect that a suit for declaration of rights over certain plots/gatas was instituted by Khursida Begum registered as Case No. 68/192/22/44/61 (Khurshida Begum and others vs. Mirza Zulfikar Beg and others), which was dismissed vide order dated 05.09.2007 based on the plea related to Section 49 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953"), which creates bar in relation to suit filed subsequent to notification published under Section 52 of the Act of 1953.

5. The order dated 05.09.2007 was assailed by the original plaintiffs namely Khurshida Begum and Sayeeda Begum, who expired during pendency of appeal and in their place, the legal heirs were substituted, who are the private respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in this petition. This first appeal was registered as Case No. 1248/2007-2008, Computerized Case No. C2007040000615 (Khurshida Begum vs. Mirza Zulfikar Beg) under Section 331(3) of the Act of 1950. The First Appellate Court affirmed the order dated 05.09.2007 vide its order dated 18.12.2021.

6. Challenging the orders dated 05.09.2007 and 18.12.2021, the Second Appeal registered as Case No. SA/205/2022/Ayodhya, Computerized Case No. R2022042300205 (Mirza Khalid Beg and others vs. Mirza Shahid Beg) was preferred by the private respondents No. 4 to 11, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 15.05.2023 and matter has been remanded back by the second Appellate Court/respondent No. 1 with a direction to the trial Court to decide the case on merits after framing the issues.

7. The order impugned dated 15.05.2023 has been challenged on several grounds. The main ground is to the effect that the Second Appellate Court has not proceeded in the matter as required under the law.

8. Elaborating this aspect of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that a second appeal under Section 331 of the Act of 1950 has to be decided strictly in terms of mode and manner prescribed under Section 100 CPC read with Order 41 and Order 42 CPC. According to these provisions, a second appeal under Section 331 of the Act of 1950 can be allowed after formulating/framing substantial question law(s) and thereafter fixing a day for hearing on the same.

9. In the instant case, without formulating/framing substantial question of law(s), the second appeal was heard on 17.04.2023 and judgment was reserved on the same day and thereafter, the judgment was pronounced. As such, the second Appellate Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in accordance with the mode and manner prescribed. In these circumstances, interference of this Court is required in the matter.

10. He further stated t