RAM IQBAL Vs. GANGA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order dated 3-3-1998, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, in revision petition No. 1273-Faizabad, allowing the same and setting aside the judgment and order dated 28-5-1996, passed by the learned trial Court on a restoration application filed in a suit under Section 176 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that after the preliminary decree, dated 13-7-1989 was passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 176 of the Act, against which no objections were filed, the learned trial Court, treating the same as final, ordered for issuance of parwana amaldaramad for the delivery of possession accordingly, vide its order dated 6-6-1990. Thereafter, on 3-8-1990, the defendant moved a restoration application for the restoration of the suit inter alia on the ground of the orders passed by the learned trial Court, being ex parte, against which objections were filed by Ganga Prasad etc. inter alia pleading that the applicants had full knowledge of the proceedings and they deliberately did not appear before the Court. The learned trial Court, vide its order dated 28-5-1996, allowed this restoration application after condoning the delay, caused in filing the same, against which a revision was preferred by Ganga Prasad etc. before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has allowed the same and set aside the order dated 28-5-1996, passed by the learned trial Court, vide his judgment and order dated 3-3-1998 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been filed by Ram Iqbal etc. before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record on file. As a matter of fact, the restoration application filed by Ganga Prasad etc. was allowed by the learned trial Court on 28-5-1996, treating the orders dated 13-7-1989 and 6-6-1990, being ex parte. The learned Additional Commissioner did not agree with the views expressed by the learned trial Court and has reversed the same inter alia on the grounds - firstly, that the observation of the learned trial Court in respect of the minority of Ram Anuj has been made without any evidence on record, especially when the certificate of the date of birth issued by a private institution was not proved according to law; secondly, that the finding in respect of the service of notices on the defendants was sufficient, as the same had been served through affixation; and thirdly, that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in restoring the suit of the plaintiff. A bare perusal of the record on file clearly reveals that the learned Additional Commissioner has dealt with the matter in question through and through, at length in an analytical and logical manner and has, in fact, correctly met out each and every finding, recorded by the learned trial Court. The views expressed by him being in correct perspective of law, are rather quite in order and therefore, I record my concurrence with the same as well and therefore, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim, are rather untenable for the same reason and as such, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright.