LODI Vs. ABHAIRAJ ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad in a case under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act whereby he has recommended that the order of the trial Court to be set aside and the restoration application be allowed.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Miyadeen father of the revisionist filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 29-6-1969 in respect of the plot in dispute. In the said suit, all the opposite parties were parties and after taking evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court found that the appellant Miyadeen is in cultivatory possession and had proved his case. Hence, the trial Court decreed the suit vide his order dated 30-7-88. Against the judgment and decree of the trial Court an appeal was preferred which was dis­missed on 3-7-89. Both the orders have become final between the parties and the orders were incorporated in the revenue records. A restoration application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC and Order I, Rule 10 CPC was moved by the opposite-parties Nos. 6 to 8 on 30-3-90 on the basis of fictitious sale-deed dated 20-5-88 which is void and vague and the opposite-parties also sought impleadment in the said suit. On 18-1-94 the trial Court allowed the impleadment application and set aside the exparte order. Against this order a revision was preferred before the learned Addi­tional Commissioner, who vide his order dated 28-2-98 has recommended that the order of the trial Court be set aside.

(3.) A perusal of the records reveals that the trial Court passed an order which was just and proper in the circumstances of the case. By allowing the impleadment application the trial Court has passed an order which will amount to opening the way for complete and effective adjudica­tion of the controversy between the par­ties. By setting aside the exparte decree the trial Court has re-opened the matter and allowed an opportunity to both the parties to have their say on merits of the case. Restoration is a matter of judicial discretion and the mere fact that the trial Court has not written a detailed order would not mean that the trial Court did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. In the cir­cumstances of the present case the order passed by the trial Court was justified. The learned Additional Commissioner has gone wrong in recommending that the order passed by the trial Court be set aside. 5. Disagreeing with the recommen­dation of the learned Additional Commis­sioner revision is dismissed. The order of the trial Court is upheld. Revision dismissed.