(1.) THIS revision has been filed by Kameshwar Singh and others against the order dated 12-6-98 passed by learned Commissioner, Azamgarh in revision No. 187/B of 1996 setting aside the order dated 20-6-96 passed by SDO/Up-Ziladhikari, Bansdih and remanded the case back for fresh decision of restoration application No. 4/11 in suit No. 1241 under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Ram Naresh instituted a suit on 15-2-86 which was decreed on 6-12-86. Kameshwar Singh and others filed an application for setting aside that decree on 31-10-89. By the order dated 20-6-96 the trial Court set aside the ex parte decree and restored the suit to its original number. Against this order Ram Naresh and others filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed. On 12-6-98 the matter was sent back for fresh decision after giving both parties an opportunity of producing evidence and of being heard. Against this order the present revision has been filed.
(3.) THE application for restoration filed by Kameshwar Singh and others was filed after the prescribed period of limitation and was not within time. An objection has been taken by Ram Naresh and others that the restoration application being barred by time was liable to be dismissed on that ground. The trial Court did not specifically deal with the question whether the delay in filing the restoration application had been explained properly or not. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the view that the trial Court should have decided the question of limitation as a preliminary issue and should have considered the restoration application on merits only if the delay in filing the restoration application was condoned. He has given reasons in support of his order with I agree. In the circumstances of the present case the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner that the trial Court should decide the point regarding the condonation of delay in filing the restoration application first appears to be just and proper. In case the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned the trial Court would naturally decide the restoration application on its merit. There is no ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner.