HORILAL Vs. RAMDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a ref­erence dated 16-6-1997 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in respect of revision petition No. 33 of 1996 varanasi with (he recommendation that the revision he allowed and the order dated 5-12-1996 passed by the learned trial Court beset aside and the matter be remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction that it should decide the matter of substitution and abatement first and then to proceed fur­ther with the matter in question.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Hori Lal and Ors. instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act for declaration. The suit was decreed on 1-9-5-1981. A restora­tion application was moved on 27-9-1988 on behalf of Rama Shanker and Ors. to set aside the aforesaid decree. Hori Lal ob­jected to the restoration. During the pen­dency of the proceedings, Raja Ram died. The substitution application was not moved within the prescribed period of limitation. The learned trial Court al­lowed the restoration application on 5-12-1996. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Addi­tional Commissioner has made this refer­ence with the aforesaid recommendation.

(3.) I have carefully and closely examined the submissions made by the learned Council for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close examination of records, it is manifestly cleat that the learned trial Court has not Decided the matter in question as per the procedure prescribed by law. The learned lower revisional Court has properly analysed, discussed and considered the material and relevant facts an evidence on record and has rightly recommended to set aside the aforesaid order passed on 5-12-1996by the learned trial Court.