JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated October 8, 1974 passed by the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra. 2. The facts are that the Gaon Sabha Pempur Raipura had filed a suit under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the defendant claiming that the latter had trespassed over Gaon Sabha property. The trial court recorded evidence and gave a judgment on December 20, 1972 decreeing the suit for plot No. 835, but dismissing the same for plot Nos. 861 to 866. 3. An appeal was filed against that part of the order of the trial court which dismissed the suit in respect of certain plots before the Commissioner Agra on May 8, 1974. The appeal was therefore beyond time by more than one year and dismissed accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Gaon Sabha had no knowledge of the order dated December 20, 1972 before May 2, 1974. 5. The order sheet of the trial court record shows that both the parties in the case were duly represented by counsel in the proceedings. The Gaon Sabha was represented by counsel who conducted the case throughout and submitted arguments on October 18, 1972. The order sheet further shows that the learned counsel absented himself on future dates. The circumstances of the ease make it clear that if the Gaon Sabha was at all ignorant of the judgment on the date it was given the responsibility for the same must rest legally upon it-self and its counsel. The appeal filed before the Commissioner. Agra, clearly made a false statement in claiming that the appellant had no knowledge of the judgment of the trial court till as late as May 2, 1974. 6. In second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Gaon Sabha could not be deemed to have had notice of the judgment of the trial court in view of the fact that the signature of its counsel was not obtained on the order-sheet in token of his having been informed of the judgment. This argument is clearly untenable in view of the facts stated above. 7. The second appeal is dismissed. Special costs under Section 35-A of the C.P.C. are awarded to respondents amounting to Rs. This argument is clearly untenable in view of the facts stated above. 7. The second appeal is dismissed. Special costs under Section 35-A of the C.P.C. are awarded to respondents amounting to Rs. 1000/- in view of the fact that a false and vexatious case was filed by them in the trial court in respect of the plots for which their suit was dismissed. The judgment of the trial court clearly shows that the Gaon Sabha had not even a shadow of claim to the land in suit which had earlier been declared by consolidation authorities upto the level of the Deputy Director of Consolidation not to be agricultural land within the meaning of the U.P.C.H. Act. 8. It may also be noticed that an application has been filed in this court alleging these that contempt of court has been committed by respondents in disobeying the order passed by my learned predecessor on December 4, 1974. The order passed was merely to the effect that status quo should be maintained by the parties. In view of the fact that the judgments of the lower courts were in favour of the respondents, it is clear that no contempt could possibly have been committed by them in respect of the plots in dispute. Moreover, the order actually conveyed to them has not been placed on the record. The contempt application is, therefore, clearly frivolous and filed with ulterior motives. It is highly unfortunate that the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha has thought fit to file such an application before this court on March 18, 1975. 9. The record of this case before the Board of Revenue reveals a sad story of deliberate harassment of respondents for mala fide reasons. It is unfortunate that the counsel who have acted for the Gaon Sabha in the various courts have acted in the manner that they have. It is under their advice that the Gaon Sabha has managed to entangle the respondents in a course of litigation lasting for several years. It is, therefore, ordered that the copy of this judgment be sent to Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh for such enquiry and action in the matter as he may deem fit.