LAWS(ALL)-2000-1-50

RAGHUBIR PRASAD Vs. MAHANT GOVIND DASS

Decided On January 25, 2000
RAGHUBIR PRASAD Appellant
V/S
MAHANT GOVIND DASS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Janam Singh, J. This revision has been preferred by Raghubir Prasad against the judgment dated 3-6-99 passed by Additional Collector First Class, Kotdwar.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff-opposite-party filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR and against one Makhan Dass on the ground of adverse possession. Notice to the op posite-party was issued on 2-4-93 for 21-4-93. No proceeding took place on this date and the date was adjourned for 29-4-95. Again on this date the case was adjourned for 11-5-93. No proceeding could take place on this date and the case was again adjourned for 26-5-93. On 29-4-93 an ap plication was moved by plaintiff Mahant Govind Dass for service by publication. On this application no orders were passed on that date but on 11- 5-93 notices were issued because the Presiding Officer was busy in other official work. THE order for publication was passed on 11-5-93 which was published in one local paper 'jayant' under the seal and signature of Sub-Divisional Officer on 11-5-93. On 26-5-93 the order to proceed ex-pane was passed and on 28-5-93 the case was adjourned for 3-6-93. On this date oral evidence was recorded and on 2-7-93 the suit was finally decreed. After coming to know about the ex-parte decree the revisionist moved a restoration application on 19-7-97 for set ting aside the ex-parte decree. Defendant Makhan Dass had already died on 27-6-90 hence the said order was against a dead person. M/s. Birla International moved an application for impleadment on 27-2-98 on the ground that he has purchased the said land from the plaintiff Mahant Govind Dass. This impleadment applica tion was rejected by the trial Court against which a revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner which j was allowed by the. learned Additional Commissioner on 6-3-99. This order was passed in Revision No. 22 of 97-98. THE trial Court dismissed the restoration ap plication against which this present revision is preferred.