SHANKAR SINGH Vs. SRI NAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the judgment and order dated 22-4-1994 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 9-11-1977 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 176 of the UPZA and LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Kamla instituted a suit under Section 176 of the Act with the prayer that 1/3 share of the plaintiff over the land in suit as detailed at the foot of the plaint, be partitioned and possession of the same be delivered to him. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 9-11-1977 declared 1/3 share of the plaintiff over the land in suit and on 9-12-1977 passed the final decree accordingly. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. During the pendency of this appeal, on an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act moved on behalf of Srinam s/o Kamla praying for condonation of delay caused in filing the appeal and deciding the appeal on merits, the learned lower appellate Court allowed the aforesaid application and condoned the delay in filing the appeal by means of its order dated 22-4-1994. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close examination of the relevant record it is crystal clear that the date of preliminary decree passed by the learned trial Court is 9-11-1977 and final decree is 4-4-1990 and as such considering the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, the learned lower appellate Court has correctly condoned the delay in filing the aforesaid appeal. In order to promote the ends of substantiate natural justice and to facilitate its course, it would be quite just and proper to sustain the aforementioned order dated 22-4-1994 passed by the learned lower appellate Court as the parties shall avail of the reasonable and due opportunity of hearing before it and as such neither of the parties should feel aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order.