JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- This is defendants writ petition, which arises out of a suit under Section 229-B read with Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the first two courts. In second appeal the learned Member has passed the following order :- "I, therefore allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the Additional Commissioner and the trial court. Under the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs." 3. Aggrieved by the order of the second appellate court, the defendant-petitioner has approached this court under article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner consents before me that the second appellate court has patently erred in setting aside the judgment of first two courts and the impugned judgment is also patently erroneous because it has not finally indicated as to what happened to the suit filed by the contesting opposite party. He has also mentioned that consolidation is going on in the village. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned Judgment of the second appellate court and has stressed that an application for correction of the judgment is still pending in the Board of Revenue. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder stated that application stands disposed of by now. 7. In the circumstances mentioned above, the impugned order of the second appellate court dated 24-8-77 suffers from patent error as it has failed to indicate about the result of the plaintiff's suit, hence the ends of justice demand in the circumstances of the case that the impugned order should be quashed and the second appellate court should be asked to pass final order regarding the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party. 8. In view of the facts stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the consolidation is going on in the village. It is not necessary for me to deal with the contention raised on behalf of the defendant-petitioners on merits when the maker is to be dealt with by the second appellate court. Therefore, it will be open to the parties to take their stands and the second appellate court shall pass the final order regarding the suit of the plaintiff-opposite-party. 9. Therefore, it will be open to the parties to take their stands and the second appellate court shall pass the final order regarding the suit of the plaintiff-opposite-party. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed, and the impugned judgment of the second appellate court dated 24-8-77 is hereby quashed and the second appellate court will deal with the claims of the parties in the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.