Laung Shree vs Ganga Sahay

Himanshu Kumar, Member.

This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2052003 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in a revision filed against the judgment and order dated 2081999 passed by the trial Court in a case under Sections 176/182 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that in proceedings under Section 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, the preliminary decree was made on 2811997. Subsequent to this the Lkehpal submitted Kurras on 2341997 which were accepted by the SDO in the absence of any objection from the parties concerned by his order dated 3041997. Subsequent to that a restoration application was moved by Hazari Lal and others on 2761997 claiming that they have received no information regarding the kurras submitted by the Lkehpal which suffers from infirmities and hence they could not file any objection against the same. Hazari Lal and others prayed that the case be restored and decided on merits after giving them opportunity of hearing. The SDO, Kol, by the order dated 2081999 accepted the above restoration application and set aside the order dated 3041997 with the observation that Lekhpal should prepare and file fresh Kurras on the basis of preliminary decree and agreement between the parties. Against this order dated 2081999 a revision was filed in the Court of Additional Commissioner, Agra, who by his order dated 2052003 allowed the revision and struck down the order of the SDO dated 2081999. Against this very order the present revision has been filed before the Board of Revenue.

Heard the learned Counsel for the opposite parties on 2072006 and the learned Counsel for the revisionist on 182006 and perused the relevant papers on the file.

The basic ground of revision is that the finding recording by the learned trial Court while deciding the restoration application on 2081999 have not been set aside by the learned Additional Commissioner who however, has reversed the judgment of the trial Court. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 2052003 of the learned Additional Commissioner shows that it is sketchy and a nonspeaking order and has not reversed any finding of the learned trial Court recorded on 2081999. A certain degree of analysis was accepted by the learned Additional Commissioner in revision which has been totally compromised for the sake of brevity. The impugned order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 2052003 does not at all confirm to be statutory requirement of Order XLI, Rule 31 CPC and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. I find that the order dated 2081999 of learned SDO, Kol, is a speaking order and passed after detailed analysis and, therefore, deserves to be upheld.

In view of the above, the revision having force and is hereby allowed, the impugned order dated 2052003 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is set aside and that of the trial Court dated 2081999 is hereby upheld and sustained. Let the records be returned within a week to the Courts concerned and this Courts file be consigned to the record room.

Revision allowed.