ZAFAR HUSSAIN Vs. ANWAR HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Zal'ar Hussain against the order dated 10-11-99 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Division in appeal No. 270/183 of 98-99. By the impugned order the learned Addi­tional Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the case to it for fresh decision.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that trial Court passed an order on 17-5-99 against Anwar Hussain (defendant No. 2). The trial eourt observed that in spite of proper service on Anwar Hussain, he did not turn up. He observed that summons have been served on either defendants who are his real brothers and are defendants No. 1 and 3. The trial Court rejected the application dated 3-2-99. Feeling ag­grieved by this order Anwar Hussain filed an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the case was remanded. Jafar Hussain has now come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) FROM a perusal of the record it is obvious that the trial Court had passed an order after being satistied that Anwar Hussain did not turn up even after proper service. It is also obvious that lots has been finalised on 17-11-98 and Anwar Hussain never raised any objection against the lots. Moving of an application by him on 3-2-99 was merely an attempt to get the proceed­ings re-opened and to delay the finalisation of the matter. The learned trial Court has considered the matter in detail and found that there existed no sufficient cause to grant application dated 3-2-99 moved by Anwar Hussain. The learned Additional Commissioner did not scrutinised the matter properly and went on assumption. His intercncc that there was no service of summons on Anwar Hussain is not borne out from the record. As a matter of fact the trial Court was justified in holding that Anwar Hussain has been served. In the cir­cumstances of the present case I do not see any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. The learned Additional Commissioner has gone wrong in remanding the case for fresh considera­tion. His order is not sustainable in law.