RAM MILAN Vs. HARI CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 6-7-98 by which the learned Additional Commissioner has set aside the order dated 29-6-91 and order dated 13-5-82.

(2.) BRIEF facts of this case is that a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act was filed by Ram Milan and this suit was decreed ex parte on 13-5-82. Restoration application was filed by Hari Charan. This restoration application was rejected by the learned trial Court vide his order dated 29-6-91. Being aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner and the learned Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by this order this revision has been filed.

(3.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly allowed the restoration application because in the original suit opposite parties were properly informed.