RADHEY SHYAM Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER JUDICIAL GORAKHPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed a restoration application in a suit filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, alleging that it was ex-parte and, therefore, the same should be restored and the matter should be decided on merits. THE restoration application was rejected and the revision filed against the same has been dismissed, against which the petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the said orders on the ground that the orders impugned are erroneous in law.

(3.) IT is undisputed that the tenure holder Ram Niranjan was very much alive and he did not question the correctness of the compromise or the decree passed by the trial Court.