AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. S. Ravi, Member.
This is a revision directed against the order passed by Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division on 12122000 in Revision No. 44/31 of 9798. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the restoration application of the revisionist on the ground that the revisionist the engaged Counsel so it cannot be said that he was not represented in the Court. It is not clear from the impugned order whether even the Counsel of the revisionist was issued any notice or not of the date fixed in the Revisional Court. In absence of any such evidence it cannot be constituted that the Counsel of the revisionist had knowledge of the date fixed for hearing of the case. Mere engagement of the Counsel cannot amount to giving notice of hearing to the revisionist or his Counsel. Technicalities which may result into inflicting injustice rather than justice to the litigants cannot and should not be resorted to. The learned Additional Commissioner should have adopted a pragmatic and judicious approach.
Revision is accordingly allowed and the case is remanded to learned Additional Commissioner to pass a fresh order on the restoration application of the revisionist.
Revision allowed.