GAYADIN AND ORS. Vs. RAM CHANDRA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS FAFO/Revision has been filed against the orders dated 2-12-1997 and 11-3-1997 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Azamgarh Division Azamgarh and Additional Officer Second Azamgarh.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case is that -

(3.) THE Counsel for the appellants/revisionists submits that against the order dated 1-1-1997 a time barred restoration application dated 15-2-1997 was filed by the respondents before the trial Court but the trial Court without condoning the delay he has passed an ex parte order on 15-2-1997 against that restoration application was filed by the appellants/respondents dated 24-2-1997 and the same was also not considered by the trial Court. The trial Court without disclosing any reason passed by cryptic order dated 11-3-1997 and rejected the compromise decree dated 1-1-1997. In this regard the Counsel for the appellant placed reliance reported in 1987 R.D. Page No. 89 and 1990 RD Page 243; it has been held that in case any time barred application has been filed and the same has been allowed without condoning the delay; such order is without jurisdiction and he has also placed a reliance reported in 1992 Revenue Reporter page 373 (HC) Tulsi v. Dy. D.C.S. and others, in the said case it has been held that before passing any impugned order reasons should be given and he further submitted that the affidavit filed by the Brijesh Kumar Chauhan was never served upon the revisionist during this period he has died.