SUKH NANDAN Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned herein is the order-dated 23.2.2005 whereby the Board of Revenue has allowed the revision and set aside the order of Addl. Commissioner dated 25.10.2004 attended with direction to the trial court to afford opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and decide the suit on merits.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the order mainly on the ground that some of the plaintiff were represented as Caveators while other plaintiffs were not represented; that judgment was rendered without having trial court record and without issuing notices to all the plaintiffs and ultimately, it is canvassed that the Board of Revenue erred in law in allowing revision, setting aside the order of Additional Commissioner while affirming the order of trial court dated 13.1.2003.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.