QASIMUDDIN Vs. EJAZ AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the judg­ment and order dated 9-9-1999, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order, dated 12-2-1999, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act ( here in after referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Qasimuddin in­stituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act, with the prayer that the plaintiff be declared Bhumidhar in possession over the suit-land, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court, after com­pleting the requisite trial, decreed the aforesaid suit on 3-1-1996. Later on, an application for restoration was moved which has been rejected on 12-2-1999, by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner, by means of his order, dated 9-9-1999, al­lowed the appeal and set aside the aforesaid alleged ex parte order dated 3-1-1996, remanding the case to the learned trial Court for decision on merits. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records, on file. From a bare perusal of the records, it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court has not decided the matter in question, in correct perspective of law and has rejected the application for restoration, on a mere technical ground. The learned lower ap­pellate Court has rightly analysed, dis­cussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has recorded a clear and categorical finding to the effect that in the interest of natural ustice, it would be quite just and proper to decide the matter in question, on merits, in consonance with the provisions of law. I entirely agree with the aforesaid conclusion, drawn by it. Con­sidering the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find that in order to promote the ends of substantive natural justice and to facilitate its course, it would be quite just and proper as well as fair and equitable to uphold the aforesaid im­pugned order, dated 9-9-1999, passed by the learned lower appellate Court, as before the learned trial Court, both the parties would be able to avail of the oppor-tunity of hearing and adducing their respective evidence, in support of their claims and as such, none of the parties should feel aggrieved by the aforesaid im­pugned order, as, the rr .tter in question, shall be decided on merits in accordance with law.