GURMEET SINGH Vs. VIRENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 30-4-2002 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act heard and decided by A.S.D.O. Bareilly vide judgment and decree passed on 30-4-2000 whereby the suit has been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was instituted in respect of Plot No. 433 area 0.101 hectare situated in village Karimganj, Pargana Chaumhala, Tehsil Baheri district Bareilly whereby declaration was sought in respect of the said plots because the plaintiff respondents have paid Rs. 20,000 to the original tenant on condition that if the rest amount is not paid within two years the plaintiff-respondent would be tenant of the land in dispute. It was also contended that the original tenants to whom the said amount was paid consequently died and the plaintiff-respondent remained in possession over the land in dispute since the payment of the amount as said above. On issuance of notices the suit was contested and written statements were filed. The trial Court on pleadings of the parties framed as many as seven issues and parties were allowed to adduce their evidences and after evaluating the evidences advanced by the parties, the trial Court vide its order as mentioned above dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said order first appeal was preferred before the Commissioner Bareilly Division, Bareilly wherein the order dated 30-4-2002 has been passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, against which the present revision before the Board and the same is being heard by this Court.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist mainly submitted that the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner was not final. The higher Courts had all the jurisdiction to reverse the same, that under Order XXIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. was moved before the learned Additional Commissioner and he did not pass proper order in accordance with the provisions laid down in the same. Hence the order of the learned Additional Commissioner being erroneous irregular and illegal be set aside.