PURSHOTTAM PRASAD Vs. CHANDRA SHEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two second appeals filed by Purshottam Prasad and others against the judgment and order dated 22-9-95 passed in Appeal No. 67/67 and 68/68 of 1993-94. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeals. The appeals were filed on 12-3-96. An applica­tion under Section 5 of the Indian Limita­tion Act alongwith an affidavit has also been filed seeking condonation of delay. The grounds for delay being sufficient the delay is condoned and the appeals heard on merits.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that preliminary decree was passed and there is no dispute so far as shares of the parties are concerned. The Lekhpal prepared the lots on 5-6-92. Parties filed objections. On 20-8-92 the irial Court ordered that lots of the parties be prepared afresh by the Lekhpal. On 23-7-93 the Lekhpal filed another lot. Objection was taken by the defendant against the lots prepared by the Lekhpal. The trial Court ordered that lots prepared on 5-6-92 would remain in tact so far plain­tiff was concerned but the lots of the defen­dants be prepared afresh. The plaintiff sought recall of this order. The trial Court rejected his application. Appeals filed by him were also dismissed. Hence the present second appeals.

(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that by the order dated 20-8- 92 the trial Court had ordered that lots of all the parties be prepared afresh. It would mean that he had set aside the lots prepared earlier by the Lekhpal. It was not open to the trial Court to say that the lots prepared on 5-6-92 would remain in tact so far as the plaintiff was concerned but for other par­ties the lots would be prepared afresh. This is clearly against the rules on the subject and cannot be allowed to stand. As a matter of fact lots of all the parties should be prepared according to the rules on the subject. The learned Additional Commissioner has also failed to consider the case in a proper judicial manner.