VISHESH KUMAR Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a second appeal preferred against the judg ment and decree dated 25-9-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of the judgment and order dated 21-2-1995 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 176 of UPZA & LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Mahendra Singh and others instituted a suit under Section 176oftheupza& LR Act with the prayer that 1/3rd share of the plaintiffs in the disputed holding be partitioned and pos session of the same be also delivered to the plaintiffs over the disputed holding as detailed at the foot of the plaint. During the proceedings of the case, the learned trial Court by means of its order dated 23-8-1993 approved the lots of the parties concerned prepared on the basis of mutual consent. Later on, an application was moved on behalf of the defendant-appel lant, Vishesh Kumar son of Genda Singh deceased to set aside the aforesaid ex pane order dated 23-8-1993. The leatned trial Court rejected the aforesaid application on 21-2-1995. Aggrieved by this order, a first appeal was preferred. The learned lower appellate Court by means of its order dated 25-9-1996 has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) NO force is found in the conten tions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant. To my mind, the aforesaid im pugned judgment and order passed by the learned lower appellate Court is sus tainable, well founded and wholly war ranted in law. I find force in the conten tions raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents. Having examined the matter in question carefully, I find that no sub stantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. Moreover, no such ques tion has been framed in the memo of (his second appeal by the appellant and as such this second appeal is found to be not main tainable.