JAY PRAKASH Vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER MEERUT REGION MEERUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi learned Counsel for the Petitioners, learned standing counsel for the State Respondents and Sri R.N. Rai for the contesting Respondent No. 3.

(2.) The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.4.2006 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Khekhara, district Baghpat as also the revisional order dated 22.6.2007 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut in Revision No. 52 of 2005-06.

(3.) Sri Tyagi has submitted that proceedings under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for division of bhumidhari were instituted wherein the Respondent No. 3 although was served notice but he did not put in appearance and therefore by the order dated 8.11.2005 the trial court passed an order under Section 176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act holding that each of the Plaintiffs and Respondents had 1/5 share in the holding. According to him the Respondent No. 3 namely Sri Harish Chandra filed an application under Order IX. Rule 13, Code of Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the order on the ground that it was an ex parte order but his application was rejected. He then filed a review application which has been allowed by the impugned order passed by the trial court on payment of Rs. 200 as cost.