ARIF Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 18-7-2000 whereby the revision was allowed and the order of learned Magistrate dated 17-8-1998 was set a side.

(2.) IN brief, an ex parte judgment and order was passed under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) on 1 -7-1997. The opposite party, (the revisionist before me) moved an ap plication for setting aside the ex pane order and the learned Magistrate vide his order dated 17-8-1998 set aside the ex pane judgment and order of payment of Rs. 500 as cost. The petitioner went in revision and the revision was allowed by the impugned judg ment and order dated 18-7-2000 against which the present revision has been filed.

(3.) IT is a fact that when the learned Magistrate thought it just and proper to restore the petition to its original number for decision on merits, the learned revisional Court should not have interfered with the finding of fact given by the learned Magistrate. However, the learned counsel of the opposite party No. 2 contended that the said application was beyond time but it is clear that this point was also raised before the learned Magistrate and the delay was condoned. If the delay was condoned, again the learned sessions Judge should not have given his own finding in respect of the condonation of delay.