Udasin Panchayati Bara Akhara Kankhal Hardwar And Another v. Mahant Dooj Dass And Others

P.C Verma, J.:— Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This second appeal was admitted on 3.12.1977 by this court without framing any substantial question of law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that since the memorandum of appeal does not contain the substantial question of law as framed by the appellant as required by sub-section (3) of section 100 of the C.P.C the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He substantiated this argument by the support of Order 42A sub-rule (2) C.P.C The argument of learned counsel for the respondents is misconceived.

4. Here as noticed above, the appeal was admitted on 3.12.1977 It was the mistake on the part of the Court that the court did not frame the substantial question of law as required by sub-section (4) of section 100 C.P.C Therefore, by the time of hearing it will be in the interest of justice that the substantial question of law be framed because the appeal is admitted one and the appeal is to decide on the substantial question of law. Therefore, I frame the following substantial question of law to be decided in this appeal:

(1) Whether after enforcement of the U.P Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, the suit land stood vested with the State of U.P by operation of law free from all encumbrances and stood settled with the appellant exclusively? If so, whether the suit was barred by section 331 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act?

(2) Whether the suit was barred by law of limitation and whether this plea of limitation can be raised in a second appeal though neither raised before the Trial Court nor first Appellate Court?

(3) Whether the State of U.P and the Gaon Sabha/Gaon Panchayat were the necessary parties and if so, the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties? List the appeal on 10.12.2002 for hearing.

5. In view of the substantial questions of law framed by this court, the learned counsel for the appellants does not press the applications under Order 41 Rule 2 r/w section 100 C.P.C, under Order 41 Rule 3 and Order 42 Rule 2 C.P.C and under Order 41 Rule 2 r/w section 100 C.P.C moved for amendment. These applications are rejected accordingly.

6. Applications Rejected.