ROHAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revisions i.e. the revision No. 71 of 97-98 has been moved against the order dated 5-3-98 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division whereby the appeal has been abated under Section 5(2) of U.P.C.H. Act, while the revision No. 72 has been filed against the order dated 28-1-98 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, whereby the restoration application has been allowed after restoring the appeal to its original number.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant papers on file it is evident that the plaintiffs' suit was decreed by the trial Court on 20-6-75 whereby he was declared as sirdar of the laid in dispute. Later on, by an order dated 5-1-76, the order dated 20-6-75 was recalled and the case was restored to its original number, vide the order dated 5-1-76. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner Agra Division, which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Commissioner 31-1-77 whereby the appeal has been decided in terms of compromise. Meanwhile a restoration application dated 20-7-92 was moved for recalling the order dated 31-1-77 and the same was allowed and the aforesaid impugned order was recalled, vide the order dated 28-1-98. Later on, the aforesaid appeal was also abated by the order dated 5-3-98 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and so, these orders have been challenged before the Board under revisions. Since the facts and circumstances as well as the parties are same and therefore they are being heard and decided together; the revision No. 71 of 97-98 shall be the leading file. Here I find that the plaintiff's suit was decreed on 20-6-75 and the application moved for rectifying the decree to some extent but the Court below acted illegally in setting aside the whole decree; the learned Additional Commissioner has committed apparent error in law allowing the restoration application as the applicant had no right to move the aforesaid application and thus, the order dated 28-1-98 has been passed against a deed person and further the proceedings were initiated in restoration of a case and so the same could not be abated under Section 5(2) of U.P.C.H. Act. In the circumstances, I find force in the argument put forth by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and so the revisions deserve to be allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. The argument advanced by the Counsel for the otherside has got no substance as such, the same is not tenable. In the result, the revisions having force are hereby allowed and the impugned orders dated 28-1-98 and 5-3-98 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner are set aside. Let a copy of this order be placed on another connected revision also. Revision allowed.