RAM SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE JALAUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed against an order dismissing the revision under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff. The revision has been dismissed holding that it was not maintainable as no question of jurisdiction was involved. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the Gaon Sabha which was decreed expert on 23rd February, 1979. An application for setting aside the expert decree under Order IX Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code was made on March 24, 1979. That application was not filed by the Pradhan or Up Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha but was moved by the Lekhpal who claimed to be the Secretary of the Gaon Sabha. A copy of that applica tion is on record which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Annexure 2 is the objection filed against that order and in para 4 of Annexure 2 of the writ petition it was specifically asserted that Baij Nath Lekhpal had no right to move the application on behalf of the Gaon Sabha nor he was given any such right nor he was appointed by the Gaon Sabha to do pairvi of the case. The munsif before whom the application was filed, has allowed the application without any finding as to the right of the Lekhpal Baij Nath or his authority and whether the conditions of para 131 of the Gaon Sabha Manual and Rule 110-AAA framed under Section 112-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act were complied with. An oral assertion that the Lekhpal was authorised by the authorities was meaningless in absence of any document. Learned counsel for the respondents has retied on para 4 of Annexure 1 to the writ petition where the following is mentioned : "adhikarion dwara naye sachiv Lekhpal Sri Baijnath ko pairvi ke liye niyukt kiya gaya. " This is too vague. Neither the Officer who authorised the Lekhpal has been mentioned nor any order or date has been given. Inspite of the specific objec tion of the petitioner the trial Court without giving any finding on the authority of the person who moved the application for restoration, allowed the restora tion application. This was a serious mistake of jurisdiction and the observation of the Disrict Judge Orai, Sri R. B. Khandelwal, that there was no question of jurisdiction involved is wrong, as such his order is liable to be quashed. In the result, the present petition is allowed and the order of the District Judge Jalaun at Orai dated 1-6-1979 in Civil Revision No. 35 of 1979 (Anuexure IV to the writ petition) is quashed and the case is sent down to him for decid ing the matter afresh in accordance with law and the observations made above. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs from the contesting respondent. .