TANSUKH RAM Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 5-1-99 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly, in Appeal No. 30 of 1997 arising out a suit No. 186 of 1988-89 under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA and LR Act. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner, set aside the orders dated 31-3-97 and 20-5-97 passed by the trial Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Sheo Charan Lal instituted a suit which was dismissed for want of prosecution on 30-11-89. On 9-9-93 he moved an application for restoration alleging that the case has been transferred from one Court to another Court and hence a notice was necessary to be served upon him. The trial Court wrote a detailed order and found that the plaintiff had been duly served and that there was no justification to condone his absence. This order was passed on 31-3-97. The plaintiff did not file any appeal or revision against this order. He moved an application before the trial Court itself for re-consideration of the order which was rejected on 20-5-97. He filed an appeal against that order which has been allowed and the case has been remanded back to the trial Court. Hence, the present second appeal.

(3.) THE order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution was passed on 30-11-89. The plaintiff sat quiet for about more than three years. The grounds set forth by him that the case was transferred from one Court to another Court and hence a notice was necessary, does not help him because if the case was transferred from one Court to another it was for him to watch the proceedings in the Court whose case had been transferred. Apart from this the trial Court found that the plaintiff had been given due notice. The trial Court was not wrong in rejecting the application which was clearly beyond time. The plaintiff did not challenge the order dated 31-3-97 either in appeal or in revision before any higher Court. Hence, it became final. The learned Additional Commissioner has not considered the case in its correct perspective and has gone wrong in remanding the same for re- trial. In the circumstances of the present case, the order passed by the trial Court was well within its jurisdiction and deserve to be maintained.