petitioners herein and also failed to advert to various contentions raised by the petitioners before the Special Tribuna-I. It is also further contended that the Special Tribunal, on an earlier occasion, having dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground of de1ay, failed to advert to the aspect of delay while passing the impugned order and reversed the order passed on an earlier occasion. lt is lurther contended by learned Senior Counsel that, though there was a prior litigation between the same parties in respect of an extent of Acs. 11.00 gts., situated in Sy.No.251 of the said Village, the same was ended in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, respondent Nos.4 to 7 never claimed any right or title over the subject land during pendency of the previous litigation. Thus, it is contended that respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein having recovered the possession of an extent in Acs.11.00 gts., situated in Sy.No.251 from the petitioners herein through execution proceedings, have sold the said Acs. 1 1.00 gts., and having sold the s€une, respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein started falsely claiming right over the land that belongs to the petitioners herein. It is also contended that, though the petitioners herein frled O.S.No.74 of 201 1 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge at
