RAMESH CHANDRA BHAROLIA Vs. KRISHNA SARAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision against the order of Additional Commissioner, Lucknow passed on 25.2.77 in appeal no. 180 of 1975-76 confirming the order dated 10.2.76 of the S.D.O. Unnao rejecting restoration application in case no. 3.

(2.) The learned counsel for the revisionist was present, but neither the respondent nor his counsel was present on the date of final hearing i.e. 2-4-82 despite due notice. The revision was therefore, heard ex parte.

(3.) Briefly the facts of the case are that a suit under Sec. 209 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was filed against the revisionist-defendant and this suit was decreed ex-parte by the trial court vide its order dated 11.1.68. The plaintiff-respondents obtained possession of the land in suit on 10.6.68 in execution of the decree of the trial court which was later on set aside vide the appellate plaintiff-respondents are continuing court's order dated 28.9.68. the in possession illegally and thus the revisionists-defendants who were process of court is being abused, admittedly in possession of the land The position now is that while the in suit prior to its possession was delivered to the plaintiff-respondents in pursuance of the decree of the trial court gave restitution application for delivery of possession of that land to them. This application is dated 2.4.75. It was considered by the trial court who vide its detailed order dated 10.2.76 rejected it as time-barred on the ground that it was an application under Sec. 144 C.P.C. and as held by the Supreme Court in a case reported in A.I.R. 1965 page 1477 it had to be treated as an application for execution of a decree and as such the period of limitation tor filing of this application was one year from the date of final decree as provided under Item 53 of Appendix III under Rule 338 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The revisionist preferred a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner who agreeing with the learned trial court dismissed the revision vide its order dated 25.2.77. It is against this order that the present revision has been preferred before the Board.