RAMPHAL Vs. MUSABBIR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petilion under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act ( here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the order dated 14-8-1 997 passed by the learned Ad­ditional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 16-11-1996 passed by the learned trial Court during the pendency of a suit under Sect io n 229-B/209 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff's, SyedMusabbirHus-sain and Smt. Yasan Fatima instituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act with the prayer that the names of Ramphal and Malkhan Singh be expunged from the revenue records, the names of the plain­tiffs be recorded and the defendants be disposed from the suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court during the pendency of this suit on an application moved on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents, Syed Musabbir Hussain passed an order dated 16-11-1996 as per which the parties were restrained from alienation and changing the nature of the land in suit till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has upheld the aforesaid order and dismissed the revision on 14-8-1997. Hence this second revision petition.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. A close examina­tion of the relevant records clearly reveals that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned trial Court has passed the aforesaid order dated 16-11-1996. The learned lower revisional Court has also properly examined the points at issue in true perspective of law and has rightly upheld the aforesaid impugned or­ders passed by the learned trial Gum. The learned Additional Commissioner has properly analysed considered and dis­cussed the relevant material facts and cir­cumstances of the instant case and has correctly drawn a conclusion to the effect that the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper. Having closely scrutinised the matter in question, I find that to achieve the ends of substantive natural justice, the learned trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the instant case has rightly passed the aforesaid interim order as per which it has advanced the cause of natural justice between the parties concerned and either of the parties should not feel aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court.