ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for caveator/respondents No. 5, 6 and 7, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha/respondent No. 4 and learned standing counsel representing respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court challenging the order dated 2.8.2021 (annexure No. 16A) passed by the Board of Revenue (respondent No. 1).

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No. 1 has illegally remitted the matter before the learned commissioner for reconstruction of the record whereas respondent No. 1 itself is competent to construct the record and finally adjudicate the appeal on merits.

4. The present writ petition is arising out of title suit under Section 229B of The UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in brevity ‘UP ZA Act’).

5. Sri Abdul Majeed (predecessors in the interest of respondents No. 5 to 7) had filed a suit for declaration under Section 229B of UP ZA Act. Aforesaid suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.6.1981 passed by the Assistant Collector-1st Class, Allahabad. Feeling aggrieved, Abdul Majeed had filed first appeal before Commissioner, Allahabad, which was decreed by judgment and decree dated 14.6.1982. When Shaukat Ali (predecessor in the interest of the petitioner) came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 14.6.1982, he had filed recall application, which was allowed vide order dated 6.6.2017. Consequently appeal was restored to its original number. Subsequently, after hearing both the parties, first appellate court has dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 3.4.2018. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the first appellate court, respondents No. 5 to 7 have preferred second appeal, which was allowed and the matter was remitted before first appellate court by impugned order dated 2.8.2021 passed by the respondent No. 1, which is under challenge before this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in deciding the substantial question of law No. (Ba), second appellate court has illegally remitted the matter before first appellate court for reconstruction of the records whereas the respondent No. 1 is competent enough to reconstruct the record and decide the appeal on merits.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondent No. 1 has rightly remitted the matter before the first appellate court for the reconstruction of the documents inasmuch as the order passed by the first appellate court is itself not sustainable in the eyes of law in absence of the record of the court below. It is further contended that there is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the order passed by the respondent No. 1. The present writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

8. Carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on board.

9. The point for consideration in the present matter lies in a very narrow compass as to whether Board of Revenue is justified in relegating the parties before the first appellate court to decide the appeal afresh after reconstruction of the record. At second appellate stage, three substantial questions of law were formulated out of which substantial question of law number ‘Ba’ is relevant to decide the present matter, which was formulated as to whether, mere absence of original record of appellate court in the record room could be a ground to decide the proceeding of regular appeal treating it as suspicious and doubtful? I