RAM KUMAR SINGH Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the order, dated 28-1-1985, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in appeal No. 165/57 of 1984-85, arising out of an order, dated 30-4-1983 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the plaintiff. Ram Kumar Singh instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act against the State of U.P and the Gaon Sabha, concerned, for declaration of his rights as Bhumidhar in possession, over the land, in dispute, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. He has claimed the relief on the basis of his being belonging to the scheduled caste communi y and in possession of the land, in dispute since 1975. The defendant con­tested the; .ml. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial, decreed ihc suit of the plaintiff vide its order dated 30-4-19X3. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, an appeal was preferred by the Slate of U.P. During the pendencv of this appeal, the same was dis­missed in default on 21-1-1985. On 24-1-1985, a restoration applicalion was moved, which was allowed on 28-1-1985 by the learned Additional Commissioner, restor­ing the appeal to its original number. It is against; his order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the plain­tiff- revisionist, Ram Kumar Singh before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the relevant records on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly reveals that the aforesaid restoration application was moved on 24-1-1985 after the appeal was dismissed on 21-1-1985, in default. This restoration application was allowed on 28-1-1985 by the learned Additional Commissioner. It was his judicial discretion which he rightly exercised in favour of the res­toration of the appeal to its original num­ber. In fact, by doing so. the learned Court below has advanced ihe ends of justice and I see no harm or prejudice to either party by the impugned order. No manifest error of law, fact or jurisdiction has been com­mitted by him by rendering the aforesaid impugned order. I do not agree with the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the impugned order could not be passed without giving him notice. Aclose perusal of the Fard- Ahkam dated 21-1-1985 clearly reveals that the learned Counsel for the respondent before the learned Court below was also not present at the time of the dismissal of the appeal in default and therefore, the ques­tion of giving any notice to him does not at all arise. This plea is rather untenable in law. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has miserably failed to substan­tiate his claim and as such, this revision petition, having no force, deserves to be dismissed outright.