CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. UMRAO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the order dated 11 -3-1997 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Mordabad Division, Mordabad arisingoul. of the order dated 29-8-i 995 passed by the trial Court on a restoration application in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Chandra Prakash and Brahm Pal instituted a suit under Sec­tion 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act, im-pleading Hori Singh and others as defen­dants for declaration on the basis of a Will dated 17-10-1984 over the suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial decreed the aforesaid suit on 26-8-1994. Later on a restoration applica­tion was moved on behalf of the defendant to set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 26-8-1994. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 29-8-1995 rejected this restoration application. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has allowed this appeal, set aside the aforesaid impugned order dated 29-8-1995, allowed the afore said restora­tion application moved on behalf of the defendant set aside the judgment and decree dated 26-8-94 and remanded the matter in question to the trial Court to decide the same on merits in accordance with law after affording reasonable and due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On perusal the record it is amply clear that the learned lower appellate Court has properly analysed, discussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has examined the points at issue in correct perspective of law and has drawn a conclusion and inference to the effect that the ex pane judgment and decree was ob­tained by the plaintiff-appellants against the defendants-respondents by restoring to forged and fabricated service of sum­mons upon the defendants-respondents. Having closely scrutinized the matter in question, I find that this conclusion and inference drawn by the learned additional Commissioner is cogent and convincing. I find no reasons to disagree with the same.