RAMESH SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An ex parte order in a mutation case was passed against the petitioner on 06.10.2004. Petitioner filed restoration application which was allowed on 25.01.2005. Thereafter an order was passed on 12.12.2008 against the petitioner closing the opportunity to lead the evidence. Application to recall the said order was dismissed on 19.12.2008 by Tehsildar(Judicial) Nagina, Bijnor passed in case no.463 of 2008. Against the said orders petitioner filed revision no.58 of 2008-09 Additional Commissioner (Adm) Moradabad, Division Moradabad dismissed the revision on 30.09.2009 which order has been challenged through this writ petition. The Additional Commissioner further passed an order confirming the earlier order dated 06.10.2004 passed by the trial court through which mutation application filed by the contesting respondents no. 3 to 5 Pradeep Kumar & others had been allowed ex parte on the basis of sale deed dated 27.12.2003. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as revision was directed against orders dated 12.12.2008 and 19.12.2008 hence by maximum revision could be dismissed and said orders could be maintained, however, in the said revision learned additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revive the ex parte order dated 06.10.2004. It virtually amounted to setting aside the order dated 25.01.2005 through which earlier ex parte order dated 06.10.2004 had been set aside. The argument is quite correct hence accepted. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 30.09.2009 is modified. Revision filed by the petition shall be treated to have been dismissed. That part of the impugned judgment of lower revisional court through which earlier order passed by trial court dated 06.10.2004 was revived is set aside. Net result is that the trial court/tehsildar (judicial) Nagina, Bijnor should decide the case without providing any opportunity to adduce evidence to the petitioner as had already been directed by the Tehsildar on 12.12.2008. However, argument of learned counsel for the petitioner should be heard but no adjournment should be granted to the petitioner. It is further directed that the trial court before proceeding further shall issue notice to and hear the contesting respondents.

(2.) If any evidence was earlier filed by the petitioner before the trial court, except the evidence which was refused to be taken on record through order dated 12.12.2008, then the same shall be considered while deciding the case by the Tehsildar.

(3.) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.