RAFIQ Vs. CHAMAN SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the judgment and order, dated 2-12-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated 30-9-1996 passed by the learned trial Court in the proceedings initiated under Section 198(4) of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that these proceedings were initiated upon an application moved by Shafiq and others, with the prayer that the lease granted in favour of the opposite parties Ramzan and others be cancelled and plot number 207/324 admeasuring 1.64 acres situate in village Hithanpur Kalan, be recorded in their names. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial, aforesaid lease granted cancelled the of granted in favour of Ramzan and others on 21-3-1988. A restoration application was moved on 4-10-1995 on behalf of Ramzan Shah and others to set aside the aforesaid ex parte order dated 24- 3-1988. The learned trial Court set aside the aforesaid order dated 24-3-1988 and restored the case on 30-9-1996. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has dis­missed the aforesaid revision on 2-12-1996 with the observation that after the case is decided finally on merits by the learned trial Court the aggrieved party may prefer a revision petition in the said Court. Hence this second revision petition.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and relevant records on file. On a perusal of the record it is manifestly clear that the learned trial Court by means of its order dated 30-9-1996 has rightly allowed the restoration application and set aside the ex pane order dated 24-3-1988. To achieve the ends of substantive natural justice it would be quite just and proper to decide the matter on merits in accordance with law after affording reasonable and due op­portunity of hearing and adducing evidence in support of their claims to the parties concerned. The revisionists would avail of sufficient opportunity of hearing and adducing evidence in support of their claims and as such to my mind, there has been no clear denial of natural justice to the revisionists by means of the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below. The learned lower revisional Court has rightly dismissed the revision. No error of law, fact or jurisdic­tion has been committed by it.