RAM KRISHNA Vs. RAM SAMOKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, dated 16-4-93 by which the appeal filed against the order of the trial Court dated 16-4-88 was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case is that Ram Samokhan has filed a suit under Section 229-B/176 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was decreed ex-parte on 26-9-73. A restoration application was filed on 25-9-1975. This restoration was allowed by the order of the trial Court dated 31-3-79 and order dated 26-9-73 was set aside and a date was fixed for filing written statement of the opposite parties. On 20-6-79 ex-parte order was passed against the defendant. A restoration application was filed on 28-7-79 by Tribhuwan Dutt and it was requested by the applicant that the order dated 20-6-79 be set aside and order dated 31-3-79 be restored. On 16-4-88 restoration application filed by Tribhuwan Dutt was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of the trial Court first appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner and this appeal was dismissed on 16-4-93. Present second appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the ex-parte order dated 26-9-73 was restored on 31-3-79 and 28-4-79 was given for filing the written statement. On 2-6-79 no order sheet was written and on 20-6-79 ex-parte order was passed. A restoration application was filed on 28-7-79. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in filing the restoration application there was only a delay of one month and 8 days and there was no inordinate delay but the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed his restoration application on 16-4-88. The learned Additional Commissioner has also not considered the restoration application.