RAM DHARI Vs. GAON SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 10-3-99 passed in Revision No. 327/75/74/A-1994 arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Sumer and Ramdhari instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR and Act in respect of plot No. 503 and 523 seeking declaration of bhumidhari rights. They claimed to be in possession over the land in suit from before the date of vesting and have acquired rights by operation of law. No body appeared on behalf of the defendants. The suit was decreed on 19-6-84. An application for restoration of the case was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. The learned trial Court by its order dated 24-3-94 allowed the restoration application and restored the suit. Feeling aggrieved by this order Ramdhari and another filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who has recommended that the order of the trial Court be set aside and the case be remanded to it.

(3.) A perusal of the record reveals that the suit filed by Sumer and Ramdhari was decreed after considering the evidence which was available on record at that time. The restoration application moved on behalf of the Gaon Sabha is admittedly beyond time. Even an affidavits has not been filed to explain the absence on 19-6- 84 or the delay in filing the restoration application. The learned trial Court passed its order dated 24-3-94 in a cryptic manner and did not consider the point whether the delay in filing the restoration application had been explained. The delay in filing the restoration application has not been explained even by filing an affidavit. In this circumstance of the present case it is obvious that the delay in filing the restoration application seeking recall of the order dated 16-9-84 has not been explained. There being no plausible explanation for the delay in filing the restoration application, the delay is not liable to be condoned. The restoration application was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of the trial Court be set aside. I agree with him to this extent. There is however, nor reason to remand the case for deciding the application afresh.