SUDAMA PRASAD Vs. RAM RAGHUBIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. R. Yadav, Member. This is a reference made by learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly to set aside the order dated 14-1-94 passed by S. D. O. Sadar Shahjahanpur.

(2.) BRIEFLY, facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was instituted in the Court of S. D. O. Sadar Shahjahanpur in respect of Plot No. 101 area 3. 197 hectare as detailed at the foot of the plaint situated in village Pareiya Pargana Kanth Tehsil Sadar District Shahjahanpur. After issuing notices a suit was decided ex-parte against the revisionist on 1-8-1991 against which a restoration application dated 2-8-91 was moved. Meanwhile the file was sent from Additional S. D. O. Shahjahanpur to S. D. O. Sadar for disposal according to law, by some order of Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly, and S. D. O. Shahjahanpur proceeded to decide restoration application without giving any notice to the revisionist applicant and he decided the restoration application vide order dated 13-9-93 whereby restoration application stood rejected. Aggrieved by the above order a revision was preferred before the Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly wherein the aforesaid recommendation has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner which is (sic) being heard by this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the reference being in favour of the revisionist be accepted. Having heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perusing the records I find that before the trial Court revisionist was not heard on restoration application and this matter has been considered seriously by learned Additional Commissioner and he has rightly recommended for recalling the order dated 13-9-93. I further find that no objection to the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner has been filed as yet in this Court. In the circumstances recommendation being free from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is accepted. It is against natural justice to decide any application without giving opportunity to the parties having interest therein.