DALLA Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 10-1 1-97 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad arising out of an order dated 19-8-95 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file.

(3.) THE main point for consideration in the instant matter appears to be whether the trial Court as well as the lower appel­late Court has deal with the matter proper­ly or not? It is admitted that the ex pane decree dated 4-3-87 was passed by the learned trial Court keeping in view the Chaspangi service over the revisionist here. Though the revisionist by way of application dated 2-2-89 disputed the ser­vice over them and by the said application he pleaded for quashing the order dated 4-3-87. During the course of hearing dates were given to them and sometimes for the adjournment application of the revisionist costs were also imposed which is clear from the order dated 19-8-95 whereby the trial Court mentioned that on 13-2-95 and 1 -3-95 the adjournment were sought by the revisionist, they stood allowed on payment of cost. The order dated 19-8-95 also reveals that on that very date the revisionist prayed orally for adjournment though the reasons for the adjournment are not clear best known to them. The SDO concerned despite oral request refused the adjournment by saying that no Court-fee was paid. I am unable to under­stand the oral request was made for ad­journment then what was the necessity for paying Court-fee. This approach and finding of the learned trial Court appears to be ambiguous and nothing can be understood from such approaches. Instead of passing the clear cut and speaking order regarding the adjournment of the case the learned trial Court proceeded without giving op­portunity to the revisionist for deciding the application dated 2-2-89, dismissed the application. Further more the file reveals - that 4 issues were framed in the matter for adjudication of points in dispute between the parties but in the order dated 4-3-87 neither those issues have been mentioned nor any evidence in accordance with law have been taken and the declaratory suit stood decided without any evidence men­tioning therein that the revisionist did not turn up to adduce evidence. It appears that the learned trial Court in such a hurry the entire case hushed up which shows judicial mockery. It also reveals that if the services were challenged then the matter should have been examined and proper finding to the effect ought to have been recorded whether the services were proper or not. But neither the learned trial Court nor the lower appellate Court has touched this point. The Courts are to adjudicate the points of contentions with the intention to give justice to the parties in accordance with the provisions of law and for such purposes a careful examination of the whole matter is required. But in this case nothing of the sort has been done by the Courts below ; meaning thereby that the Courts below did not take pain to apply their judicial minds and if the minds of the Courts are not applied in accordance with law such orders should not be sustained.