MAQBOOL AHMAD Vs. SUNDAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order dated 12-7-1996 passed by the learned Addition­al Commissioner. Bareilly Division, Bareilly in a revision, against the order dated 21-4-1994 passed by the learned trial Court where by has allowed the restoration application.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the ease are that the revisionist a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and I.,R. Act, against the opposite-party, Sundar Lal. Notices were issued and objections were filed, but later on the opposite-party, Sundar Lal, did not appear. The trial Court by its order dated 28-11-1991 decreed the suit exparte. The opposite-party filed a restoration application on 16-6-1992. The trial Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties allowed the restoration application on 21-4-1994 .Aggrieved by this order a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, which has been heard and decided by the Additional Commissioner, vide the order dated 12-7-1996 where by the revision has been dismissed. Against this very order the present revision has come up before the Board.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the opposite-party has knowledge about the case and he filed written statement; it is wrong to say that he has no knowledge as such, the orders passed by the Courts below are not just and proper as such the same be set aside and the revision be allowed.