JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri R.R. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Sudhakar, the respondent no. 5 in person. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner assails the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue in a Second Appeal preferred by the petitioner whereby the appeal was dismissed and the order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya whereby the first appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment dated 03.03.2018 passed by the SDO, Sadar, District Ayodhya has been affirmed as a result a suit filed under Section 176 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari and Land Reforms Act seeking division of the land holding by the respondent stood decreed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily raised a three pronged submission which is noted as under:- (i) that the Board of Revenue while exercising powers under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act entertains a second appeal which is akin to an appeal as provided under Section 100 C.P.C. and thus without framing a substantial question of law, the appeal has been heard and decided. (ii) That the three courts have committed a manifest error in ignoring that a suit filed under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act partakes the nature of a regular suit where the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are squarely applicable and thus without framing issues in a contested matter the Courts have erred which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice as the petitioner has been gravely prejudiced and was not even afforded an opportunity of proper hearing which has vitiated the trial. (iii) The three courts have further erred and the entire trial was vitiated for the reason of non-framing of the issues, the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to lead the evidence, coupled with the fact that the alleged evidence which was filed by the private respondent no. 5 to that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses and thus there has been a complete miscarriage of justice and the orders impugned are bad. 4. Sri Sudhakar, the respondent no. 5 appearing in person submits that the instant petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5 to that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses and thus there has been a complete miscarriage of justice and the orders impugned are bad. 4. Sri Sudhakar, the respondent no. 5 appearing in person submits that the instant petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. It is urged that the petition has been preferred by Sri Kamlakant, however, the affidavit in support of the petition has been filed by Sri Nishakar Tripathi who is the son of the petitioner. 5. It is further stated that though the affidavit has been filed by Sri Nishakar Tripathi but the petition as well as the accompanying affidavit clearly indicates that it has been signed as Nibhakar Tripathi. It is most unusual that a person who is named and known as Nishakar Tripathi would sign as Nibhakar Tripathi (not knowing his own name). This creates doubt on the institution of the petition itself. 6. The respondent no. 5 in person further submits that the petitioner is adopting all dilatory tactics to assure that the answering respondent did not get any justice, inasmuch as, admittedly, the property in question belonged to Sri Kamal Nayan who is the father of the petitioner and the grand-father of the answering respondent. In respect of the property in question, both the petitioner and the answering respondent have equal half share and this has been adjudicated by the Courts below and in view of the aforesaid, the alleged plea raised by the petitioner regarding procedural lapses during the trial are a feeble plea which has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner rather miscarriage of justice is being artificially projected by the petitioner without any substantive prejudice being caused. 7. It is also urged that the answering respondent had instituted the suit seeking division of the land holding in the year 2012 and though the suit ought to have been decided within a period of six months, yet it took the petitioner seven years just to file his written statement. It is only when the suit was decided in favour of respondent no. It is only when the suit was decided in favour of respondent no. 5 on 03.03.2018, the petitioner filed his appeal and raised this technical ground which did not find favour with the First Appellate Court nor with the Second Appellate Court and in view of the aforesaid since the petition is concluded by findings of fact and there is no error or prejudice suffered by the petitioner, consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no. 5 in person and also perused the material available on record. 9. At this juncture, it will be relevant to notice that the respondent no. 5 who appears in person has filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order granted by a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 28.07.2021 and the pith and substance of his submission has also been mentioned in the said application which is accompanied by a short affidavit. 10. Having noticed the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it appears that the private respondent no. 5 along with his mother namely Smt. Chameli Devi had instituted a suit under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A.& L.R. Act. In the said suit, the respondent no. 5 had stated that his mother and the responent no. 5 himself together had 1/2 share in Khata Nos. 42 (Plot Nos. 365 and 529, 527 and Khata No. 44 (Plot Nos. 389, 528, 639) of Village Sherva Uparhar, Pargana Asindh, Tehsil Sadar District Faizabad (Now Ayodhya). 11. It was stated that the private respondent is in possession of his 1/2 share and since in order to avoid any dispute in future, they wanted their share to be demarcated and partitioned. 12. The petitioners had filed their written statement, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 5 which indicates that in so far as the identity of the property, the subject matter of the suit is concerned so also the pedigree as indicated by the respondent no. 5 in the plaint was admitted by the petitioner. The record would indicate that apart from what has been admitted by the petitioner in his written statement, the share of the respondent no. 5 was denied. 5 in the plaint was admitted by the petitioner. The record would indicate that apart from what has been admitted by the petitioner in his written statement, the share of the respondent no. 5 was denied. In the additional plea mentioned in the written statement, a defence was raised that the father of the private respondent no. 5 namely Kamlakar and the petitioner being real brothers had entered in an oral family settlement whereby the disputed property in question had already been partitioned and thus the respondent no. 5 and his mother did not have a right to seek or maintain the suit for partition. 13. It was also urged that apart from the property in dispute there was another issue regarding the share of Smt. Jai Devi (the wife of Ramakant, the first cousin brother of the petitioner and the Kamlakar) as indicated in the pedigree setup by the respondent no 5 which related to the property situate in Gram Bheekhi Sarai, District Ambedkar Nagar. As a result, the private respondent and his mother got share in the property of Village Bhikhi Sarai, Pargana Mijhwa, Tehsil Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar and the petitioner was given exclusive right in the property in dispute situate in village Sharwa Uparhar. 14. The records further indicate that the Court of SDO, Sadar, District Ayodhya by means of his judgment dated 03.03.2018 decreed the suit of the private respondent no. 5 and a preliminary decree was passed declaring half share in the disputed property. The said judgment dated 03.03.2018 was assailed by the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad under Section 331 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 15. From the perusal of the memo of the first appeal which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 6, a specific ground was taken by the petitioner that the Trial Court did not frame any issues and that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff-witnesses. The First Appellate Court by means of its judgment dated 25.02.2019 dismissed the appeal and no finding or discussion was made in respect of the aforesaid grounds regarding non-framing of the issues and no opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff-witness. The First Appellate Court by means of its judgment dated 25.02.2019 dismissed the appeal and no finding or discussion was made in respect of the aforesaid grounds regarding non-framing of the issues and no opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff-witness. Rather it has been stated that since in respect of the disputed property, the petitioner did not dispute that he was a co-sharer and that there was nothing on record to dispute the pedigree as set up by the plaintiff-respondent no. 5 and no evidence was brought on record to deny or to dispute as to how the parties did not have 1/2 share in the property in dispute, hence, the plea raised by the petitioner was rejected and the appeal came to be dismissed. 16. The Second Appellate Court by means of order dated 08.04.2019 after hearing the petitioner observed that before formally admitting the appeal, it would be necessary to hear the respondents, thus, it summoned the record and issued the notices. This shall be evident from Annexure No. 9 brought on record of this petition. Thereafter, the appeal was heard and it was dismissed by means of the order dated 15.03.2021 which is under challenge before this Court. 17. In the aforesaid background, it would be clear and it has also not been disputed by the respondent no. 5 that the Trial Court did not frame any issues. It is also not disputed between the parties that though the respondent no. 5 had filed the evidence on the affidavit yet the said witnesses have not been cross-examined. 18. The dispute that arises is that the petitioner submits that neither the issues were framed nor they were granted an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff-witness whereas the contention of the respondent that the petitioner was instrumental in getting the proceedings delayed and in a suit instituted in the year 2012, the written statement was filed by the petitioner in the year 2017 and since the pedigree as well as the fact that the petitioner and the respondent were co-sharers, there was practically no requirement to frame the issue and in view of the admitted position, mere non cross-examining the plaintiff-witness is not sufficient to vitiate the trial to enable the petitioner to have another round of litigation. 19. 19. In order to resolve the aforesaid, it will be necessary to notice as to whether the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable in proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. It will be relevant to notice certain provisions of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Section 176 reads as under:- "176. Holding of a bhumidhar or sirdar divisible. -(1) A bhumidhar [* * *] may sue for [division] of his holding. (2) To every such suit the [Gaon Sabha] concerned shall be made a party. 20. Section 341 reads as under: "341. Application of certain Acts to the proceeding of this Act. -Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870 (VII of 1870), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), and the [Limitation Act, 1963 (XXXVI of 1963)], [including Section 5 thereof] shall apply to the proceedings under this Act." 21. Section 331 reads as under:- "331. Cognizance of suits, etc. under this Act. -(1) Except as provided by or under this Act no court other than a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), take cognizance of any suit, application, or proceedings mentioned in Column 3 thereof [,] [or of a suit, application or proceedings based on a cause of action in respect of which any relief could be obtained by means of any such suit or application :] [Provided that where a declaration has been made under Section 143 in respect or any holding or part thereof, the provisions of Schedule II insofar as they relate to suits, applications or proceedings under Chapter VIII shall not apply to such holding or part thereof.] [Explanation. -If the cause of action is one in respect of which relief may be granted by the revenue court, it is immaterial that the relief asked for from the civil court may not be identical to that which the revenue court would have granted.] [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (i), an objection, that a court mentioned in Column 4 of Schedule II, or, as the case may be, a civil court, which had no jurisdiction with respect to the suit, application or, proceeding, exercised jurisdiction with respect thereto shall not be entertained by any appellate or revisional court unless the objection was taken in the court of first instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice.] (2) Except as hereinafter provided no appeal shall lie from an order or [decree] passed under any of the proceedings mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule aforesaid: [(3) An appeal shall lie from any decree or from an order passed under Section 47 or an order of the nature mentioned in Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) or in Order 43, Rule 1 of the First Schedule to that Code passed by a court mentioned in Column No. 4 of Schedule II to this Act in proceedings mentioned in Column 3 thereof to the court or authority mentioned in Column No. 5 thereof. (4) A second appeal shall lie on any of the grounds specified in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) from the final order or decree, passed in an appeal under sub-section (3), to the authority, if any, mentioned against it in Column 6 of the Schedule aforesaid.]" 22. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable to the proceedings governed by the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act unless a contrary provision or procedure is otherwise provided. 23. Having noticed the aforesaid provisions and read in conjunction with schedule 2 appended with Section 331, entry 16 which relates to a suit for division of holding indicates that the Court of first instance is the court of Assistant Collector-1st Class and its first appeal lies to the Court of Commissioner and the second appeal lies to the Board of Revenue. 24. 24. It will be relevant to notice that a similar situation had occurred in another matter with the only difference that in that the proceedings were instituted under the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and this Court taking note of the Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is similar to the Section 341 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and had the occasion to consider the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to the proceedings filed for division of land holding and the relevant paragraph of the case of Amar Nath Arora Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sarojini Nagar reported in (2022) 156 RD 188 held as under:- "23. It will be relevant to notice that the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 clearly provides in Section 214 regarding the applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure 1901 and the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 214 reads as under:- "214. Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Limitation Act, 1963-Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Code, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to every suit, application or proceedings under this Code." 24. From the above, it will be clear that as far as possible the provisions of CPC 1908 as well as the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable in every suit, application for proceeding under the Revenue Code unless otherwise expressly provided by the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 itself. 25. The parties before this Court including the State could not dispute the fact that both the proceedings under Section 134 and 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code are treated as regular suit to which the Code of Civil Procedure applies. One it is not disputed that the provision of Code of Civil Procedure applies then the respondent no.1 ought to have been careful in drawing the order-sheet in a manner with inspires confidence and reflects the true manner in which the proceedings are being taken forward. It is the duty of the respondent no.1 to ensure that upon completion of the pleadings proper and reflective issues are framed to encapsulate the controversy between the parties to enable them to understand the controversy involved as well as lead evidence to prove their respective contentions. 26. It is the duty of the respondent no.1 to ensure that upon completion of the pleadings proper and reflective issues are framed to encapsulate the controversy between the parties to enable them to understand the controversy involved as well as lead evidence to prove their respective contentions. 26. Needless to say that Orders, 14, 16 and 18 of CPC is also applicable, in terms whereof the Court is required to frame both issues of fact and law. It also has the right to frame and try preliminary issue if it is emanating from the plea taken by the parties and even the parties are required to lead evidence which also entails cross-examination of the witnesses and only thereafter the hearing of the suit commences." 25. From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions and dictum, there does not appear to be any provisions in the Act which provides for any contrary procedure, consequently, it cannot be said that the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable to the proceedings instituted under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. Once, it is held that the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable then the necessary corollary is that Order 14 which relates to framing of issues is also applicable. 26. The issues which may arise in a suit can be an issue of law or fact or an issue which is a mixed question of law and fact. Issues are framed on the basis of pleadings and the averment made by one party which is disputed by the other gives rise to an issue as shall be evident from the perusal of the Order 14, Rule 1 C.P.C. 27. In the instant case from the perusal of the plaint and written statement which is available on record it would indicate that the petitioner had merely admitted the pedigree and the fact that the petitioner and the respondent were co-sharer but in so far as the shares is concerned, this fact was not admitted. 28. A specific plea was raised in the written statement regarding the family settlement/partition between the parties which also included another property which was situate in a different village which was allegedly inherited coming down from the branch of Rama Kant who was the first cousin brother. 28. A specific plea was raised in the written statement regarding the family settlement/partition between the parties which also included another property which was situate in a different village which was allegedly inherited coming down from the branch of Rama Kant who was the first cousin brother. There does not appear to be any replication filed by the respondent and thus the contention/plea regarding an oral family partition and the division of the property both of Gram Sherva Uparhar, Pargana Thamseen, Tehsil Sadar, District Ayodhya and that of Gram Bhikhipur was a dispute where the parties were at variance and an issue of fact to the aforesaid effect ought to have been framed. From the perusal of the application moved by the respondent no. 5 seeking vacation of the interim order which is accompanied by the affidavit of the respondent under his own signatures filed in person, contentious submissions have been raised in respect of the property situate in Bhikhipur and an endevour has been made by the respondent no. 5 while arguing before the Court to demonstrate that the alleged plea taken by the petitioner in his written statement was false and Smt. Jai Devi had already sold the property in her lifetime in favour of the wife of the respondent no. 5. 29. It is sought to be argued by the respondent no. 5 that the said plea regarding family settlement/partition as well as the plea regarding division of the property of Village Bhikhipur and Village Sherva Uparhar is nothing but a false plea which is apparent on the face of record and cannot be countenanced by the Court. 30. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the written statement did contain a plea to which the respondent no. 5 has an explanation which has been furnished before this Court but the fact remains that whether it is the plea raised by the petitioner or the explanation furnished by the respondent no. 5 which is correct cannot be examined by this Court in absence of an issue or evidence in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the said plea arises from a pure question of fact which requires evidence to be established. 31. Admittedly, no issue was framed by the Trial Court and none of the parties had led evidence to the aforesaid effect. 31. Admittedly, no issue was framed by the Trial Court and none of the parties had led evidence to the aforesaid effect. Framing of issues is a very important stage of a trial and it charters the course for evidence. At this juncture, this Court is reminded of a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Makhan Lal Bangal Vs. Manas Bhunia reported in (2001) 2 SCC 652 where the importance of framing of issues and its impact on the trial has been considered. In para 19 and 20, it has been held as under:- 19. An election petition is like a civil trial. The stage of framing the issues is an important one inasmuch as on that day the scope of the trial is determined by laying the path on which the trial shall proceed excluding diversions and departures there from. The date fixed for settlement of issues is, therefore, a date fixed for hearing. The real dispute between the parties is determined, the area of conflict is narrowed and the concave mirror held by the court reflecting the pleadings of the parties pinpoints into issues, the disputes on which the two sides differ. The correct decision of civil lis largely depends on correct framing of issues, correctly determining the real points in controversy which need to be decided. The scheme of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure dealing with settlement of issues shows that an issue arises when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. Each material proposition affirmed by one party and denied by other should form the subject of a distinct issue. An obligation is cast on the court to read the plaint/petition and the written statement/counter, if any, and then determine with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, the material propositions of fact or of law on which the parties are at variance. The issues shall be framed and recorded on which the decision of the case shall depend. The parties and their counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. The parties and their counsel are bound to assist the court in the process of framing of issues. Duty of the counsel does not belittle the primary obligation cast on the court. It is for the Presiding Judge to exert himself so as to frame sufficiently expressive issues. An omission to frame proper issues may be a ground for remanding the case for retrial subject to prejudice having been shown to have resulted by the omission. The petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears that the parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact and the court may at once pronounce the judgment. If the parties are at issue on some questions of law or of fact, the suit or petition shall be fixed for trial calling upon the parties to adduce evidence on issues of fact. The evidence shall be confined to issues and the pleadings. No evidence on controversies not covered by issues and the pleadings, shall normally be admitted, for each party leads evidence in support of issues the burden of proving which lies on him. The object of an issue is to tie down the evidence and arguments and decision to a particular question so that there may be no doubt on what the dispute is. The judgment, then proceeding issue-wise would be able to tell precisely how the dispute was decided. 20. In the case at hand, each one of the corrupt practices alleged by the petitioner and denied by the defendant, should have formed the subject-matter of a distinct issue sufficiently expressive of the material proposition of fact and of law arising from the pleadings. Failure to do so has resulted in an utter confusion prevailing throughout the trial and also in the judgment of the High Court as was demonstrated by the learned counsel for the appellant during the hearing of the appeal attacking the findings arrived at by High Court. On some of the points in dispute the High Court has observed that no proof of the said fact (alleged in the petition) was necessary so far as the petitioner is concerned because there was no specific denial of the allegations made or as there was no answer by the defendant to the allegations of the petitioner on points of substance. The contradiction with which the trial and the judgment suffer is writ large. If a material proposition of fact or law alleged in the petition was not denied or was not specifically denied in the written statement within the meaning of Rule 5 of Order 8 CPC and such tenor of the written statement had persuaded the learned designated Election Judge in forming an opinion (belatedly while writing the judgment) that there was an admission by necessary implication for want of denial or specific denial then there was no need of framing an issue and there was no need for recording of evidence on those issues. Valuable time of the court would have been saved from being wasted in recording evidence on such averments in pleadings as were not in issue for want of traverse, if it was so! 32. It is also not disputed that the evidence which was led by the respondent no. 5, the witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner. Whether no opportunity to cross-examine was granted to the petitioner or the fact that opportunity was granted but the petitioner did not avail of the same and his opportunity was closed are two different things. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he was not granted any opportunity rather the respondent no. 5 while making his submissions states that the petitioner was responsible in delaying the proceedings and did not cross-examine, however, there is nothing on record to clearly substantiate the contention of the respondent no. 5. 33. Another feeble plea has been raised by the respondent no. 5 that had the petitioner been keen to cross-examine the witness, he ought to have made an application seeking opportunity to cross-examine which was not done. This Court, however, is not impressed with the aforesaid submissions, inasmuch as, the right to lead evidence and cross-examine is a right which inheres in a litigant/party to a suit and unless the same is specifically closed, it cannot be said that the party since did not make an application, therefore, he lost his right to cross-examine the witness. 34. As already indicated above that the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable so also the provisions of Order 16 and the provisions of Evidence Act are also applicable. 34. As already indicated above that the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable so also the provisions of Order 16 and the provisions of Evidence Act are also applicable. Nothing has been shown from the records which indicates that the opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff-witness was given to the petitioner and he did not avail of it and therefore it was closed. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that the conduct of the petitioner was such that it was so blameworthy which led the Courts to close the opportunity to cross-examine. 35. Thus, the irresistible conclusion that reflects from the record is that the opportunity to cross-examine even though not specifically claimed by the petitioner, it was not even closed by the order of the Court. 36. This Court further finds that even though this aspect of the matter was raised in the First Appeal before the Court of Additional Commissioner, yet it has not been addressed. Had the First Appellate Court which is both a Court of law and fact, noticed this fact appropriately, protraction of the litigation could have been curtailed at the stage, however, the First Appellate Court also in a cursory manner merely relying upon the fact that the petitioner admitted the pedigree and that he was a co-sharer affirmed the judgment of the trial court without taking note of the fact that the plea which was raised in the written statement whether genuine or frivolous, at least deserved consideration which has not been done. 37. Even at the second appellate stage, though, the issue has been raised as shall be evident from the memo of the second appeal wherein the questions of law as proposed by the petitioner includes this aspect but the same has also not been considered by the Second Appellate Court. 38. The Second Appellate Court which deals with the Second Appeal which is akin to a Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. ought to have considered the matter in its correct perspective as noticed hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs. 39. This Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction is not equipped to enter into the questions of fact or to re-appraise the evidence. 39. This Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction is not equipped to enter into the questions of fact or to re-appraise the evidence. Nevertheless, whether the plea raised by the petitioner in its written statement has some force or not had to be seen in light of the evidence led by the parties which is dependent on the issues which are to be framed. It is equally well settled that in absence of any issue, the parties are not entitled to lead evidence. Whatever evidence was led ought to have been subjected to cross-examination unless for reasons to be recorded that the opportunity was specifically closed which is not the case in the instant matter. Thus, a suit under Section 176 which is a suit of a regular nature having a binding effect over the parties and is not a summary proceedings but unfortunately the Courts have dealt with it in a manner as if it was a summary suit. 40. In view of the aforesaid, the Court has no option but to set aside the three orders dated 03.03.2018 passed by the opposite party no. 3, Order dated 25.02.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the order dated 15.03.2021 passed by the Board of Revenue U.P. Prayagraj and restore the Suit before the SDO concerned. The parties are directed to appear before the SDO concerned on 12th December, 2022. The SDO concerned shall frame the issues considering the pleadings and shall afford an opportunity to the parties to lead their evidences both oral and documentary with a caveat that none of the parties shall be granted unnecessary adjournments. The SDO concerned shall also take care of the fact that despite any resolution passed by the members of the Bar, both the parties are directed to appear along with their counsel and in case if the counsel do not appear, they shall be present before the SDO who shall proceed with the matter and at least one date every week shall be fixed to ensure that the matter is taken to its logical conclusion. Any party who attempts to misuse the liberty and moves adjournments, the Court shall be entitled to proceed and in case if any adjournment is granted the same shall be accompanied with a cost not less than Rs. 250/-which may increase progressively in case if party misuses the liberty. Any party who attempts to misuse the liberty and moves adjournments, the Court shall be entitled to proceed and in case if any adjournment is granted the same shall be accompanied with a cost not less than Rs. 250/-which may increase progressively in case if party misuses the liberty. The Trial Court shall endevour to decide the matter preferrably within a period of three months from the date, the parties first appear i.e. 12.12.2022. 41. In light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms on a payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent no. 5 within one week from today.