SONPATTI Vs. VIDYAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by Smt. Sonpatti and another against the order dated 14-10-1991 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in revision petition No. 80 of 1989, district Mirzapur filed against the order dated 26-8-1989 passed by the Assis­tant Collector 1st class, Mirzapur in a case under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Commissioner dis­missed the revision and maintained the order of the trial Court by which it has restored the case and recalled its order dated 11-8-1983 dismissing the suit in default, on payment of Rs.50 as cost.

(2.) IN short, the facts of the case are that on 11-8-1983, the suit was dismissed in default. On the same day, an application for restoration was moved on be half of the plaintiff. The trial Court heard the parties and considered the circumstances of the case and restored the suit to its original number on payment of Rs. 50 as cost. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Smt. Sonpatti and another filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner which was dismissed on 14-10-1991. They have now come up in this revision petition before the Board.

(3.) A perusal of the record shows that the restoration application was moved the same day on which the suit was dismissed in default. Restoration is a matter of judi­cial discretion. The trial Court was satis­fied that there existed sufficient cause for the absence. It exercised its discretion judi­cially and reasonably and restored the suit. In its wisdom, it also thought it fit to award Rs. 50 as cost which was enough. The mat­ter would now be (ought on merits and both the parties will have opportunity to lead their evidence. No material prejudice can be said to have been caused to any party. There is no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of the jurisdic­tion committed by the Courts concerned in passing the impugned order.