UDAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UDAN Singh and other have filed this revision against the order dated 3-9-2002 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration) Kanpur Division.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Udan Singh and others have filed a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court decreed the suit against which a restoration application was filed by Leelawati. The learned trial Court dismissed the restoration application on the ground that it was no force and the judgment dated 21-2-2000 is passed on merit. Against this order an appeal was preferred before the Commissioner Kanpur Division. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. Hence this revision.

(3.) THE learned Additional Commissioner has very categorically observed in his judgment that the service on the plaintiffs opposite-parties was not sufficient. The service is through publication and publication was made in the local newspaper of Kanpur City which is widely circulated in National daily. Leelawati and others are the daughters of the tenant-in-chief and they being the nearest one under Section 171 of the UPZA and LR Act should have been heard on restoration application. When services was not sufficient and the proper impleadment of the parties was not there, in such cases ex-parte order has got no relevance in the eye of law. The learned Additional Commissioner has very rightly observed and I agree with the observation made by the learned Additional Commissioner.