BALJIT Vs. TILAK RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) preferred against the judgment and order dated 24-2-2000 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad in appeal No. 8 of 1999-2000/Bijnor, arising out of the order dated 20-9-1999 passed by the learned trial Court in suit No. 27 of 1998 under Section 229-B of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that Tilak Ram, plaintiff instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against Baljit, impleading the State of U.P. and the Gaon Sabha concerned as defendants for declaration of his rights as bhumidhar with transferable rights over the land in suit as detailed at the foot of the plaint. Defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. During the pendency of this suit an application dated 20-8-1999 was moved on behalf of the defendant No. 1, Baljit to say the proceeding of the suit till the civil suit No. 217 of 1993 Tilak Ram v. Baljit, pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Najibabad, is decided. It was inter alia pleaded that the aforesaid suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a declaration to the effect that Reoti was not the son of Nirmal and the alleged adoption-deed and the sale-deed are illegal and void documents. Objections to this application were filed by the plaintiff on 27-8-1999. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties, rejected this application dated 20-8-1999 holding that the nature of the two suits are altogether different. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred by the defendant Baljit. The learned Additional Commissioner has concurred with the views expressed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) I have carefully and closely examined the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly shows that the learned trial Court after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that the nature of the two suits the present suit and the suit pending before the civil Court are altogether different. It has analysed, discussed and considered the material and relevant aspects of the matter in issue in correct perspective of law and has rightly rejected the application dated 20-8-1999 for saying the proceedings of the present suit till the disposal of the suit pending before the civil Court. The learned Additional Commissioner too was perfectly justified in concurring with the view expressed by the learned trial Court and in dismissing the appeal. I entirely agree with the views expressed by the learned Courts below with which no interference is called for. No manifest error of law, fact or jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Courts below in rendering the impugned orders so as to warrant any interference by this Court in this revision petition. To my mind the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are just proper sustainable and wholly warranted in law. No force is found in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim and as such this revision petition having no force deserves to be dismissed.