STATE Vs. NATHUA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the judgment and order dated 2-11-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated 8-9-1993 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act ( here in after in short referred to as {he Act).

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the ciise are that the plaintiff, Nathua instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act wit the prayer that he be declared bhumidharwilh transferable rights over the suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. During the pendency of the case the learned trial Court by means of its order dated 8-9-1993 has ordered that the written statement be filed on the next date fixed i.e. 22-9-1993. Heretofore, 10-6-1993, 30-6-1993, 6-7-1993, 14-7-1993, 23-7-1993, 12-8-1993 and 25-8-1993 had already been fixed for the purpose. Aggrieved by this order dated 8-9-1993 an appeal was preferred. The learned lower appellate Court in view of the provisions as contained under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC has allowed the appeal. Hence this revision petition. The suit land is alleged to have been since transferred in favour of one Surcsh Chandra Karnwal.

(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 scrutiny of the relevant record it is manifestly clear that before the learned trial Court, the defendant miserably failed us file their written state­ment despite numerous adjournments granted by it and as such in view of the provisions as contained under Order VIII Rule 10 ("PC, the learned Additional Commissioner has rendered the aforementioned impugned order dated 2-11-93. The provisions of Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC reads as under: