MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. JOR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference dated 31-1-95 has been made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, with the recommendation that the order dated 13-12-93 be set aside and the matter be remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the revisionist moved an application on 3-7-90 with the prayer to recall the order dated 8-2-90 being ex parte. The trial Court after hearing to the parties rejected the restoration application on 13-12-93. Against this very order, the revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Agra Division, wherein the aforesaid recommendation has been made to this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the reference being in favour of the revisionist the same be accepted; while in the objection it has been contended that the order was not ex parte and services were sufficient and hence the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner for remanding the matter is baseless as such, the reference be rejected.