SHAILESH KUMAR Vs. RAJA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 30-1-96, arising out of an order dated 14-11-91 passed by the trial Court whereby the restoration application was allowed.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the relevant papers on file. As nobody appeared on behalf of other side despite information as such the revision is heard ex. pane arid is decided accordingly.

(3.) IN this matter the point involved is whether the restoration application preferred in the trial Court has been properly dealt with or not and whether hearing of revision the learned Additional Commissioner has considered the points involved in the matter or not? So far as the impugned order passed by the trial Court is concerned, mere its perusal shows that the revisionist here has not even been is­sued notices to put up their case which is against the principle of natural justice. It was duty of the trial Court to issue notice before passing any order. Apparently it has not been done while dealing with the mat­ter the learned Additional Commissioner also not considered the points involved in the matter and he has dealt with the entire case with very careless manner which is no t correct in respect of setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and he has also stayed the order whereby the suit was decreed. Meaning thereby that he has reopen the entire matter. The Courts are not to complicate the matter. In the circumstances, I find there is gross il­legality committed by the Courts below as such their orders cannot be sustained.