SAHADATULLAH Vs. MOMINA KHATUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal, preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 25-9-96, passed the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order, dated 6-3-96, passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that one Smt. Momina Khatun w/o Istiaq Ahmad instituted a suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the defendants, U.P. State and others, for declaration as co-tenure holder over the disputed land, as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court, by means of its order, dated 6-3-96, has dismissed the aforesaid suit on technical ground as not maintainable. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated 25-9-96 has allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the learned trial Court for decision, afresh on merits in accordance with law; hence this second appeal.

(3.) FOR the appeallant, it was contended that the order passed by the learned lower appellate court is neither just nor in accordance with law, that it has arbitrarily allowed the appeal without discussing the objection of the appellant and reversed the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court, that the aforesaid impugned order, dated 25-9-96, passed by the learned lower appeallate court, is illegal and quite against the facts and circumstances of the instant case as such, it must be quashed. In support of his contention he has cited the case law reported in 1994 RD 197. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the order passed by the learned lower appellate court is just and proper which must be maintained. In support of his contention, he has cited the case laws reported in 1985 RD 33, 1969 RD 142; 1992 RJ 232, and 1998 RD 250.