GAYA PRASAD Vs. BAIJ NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order dated 13-10-1992, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in Revision Petition No. 4 of 1992, dismissing the revision in limine and confirming the order, dated 21-9-1992, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the plaintiff, Baij Nath etc. instituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act before the learned trial Court on 7-12-1978, against the defendants, Gaya Prasad etc. for declaration of their rights as Bhumidhar in possession of the land, in dispute and possession thereof, if they are not found in possession, after ejecting the defendant No. 1. During the course of the pendency of this Suit, the plaintiff moved an application for amendment of the plaint and the learned trial Court after hearing the parties, allowed the same on payment of Rs. 50/- as cost, vide its order, dated 21-9-1992. Aggrieved by this order, Gaya Prasad filed a revison petition before the learned Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed in limine on 13-10-1992. It is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been preferred before the Board by Gaya Prasad.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel of the parties and have also scanned the records, on file. A bare perusal of the record clearly revesals that the instant suit, filed in the year 1978, is still pending before the learned trial Court and the same is lingering on a point of the amendment of the plaint, having been allowed by the learned trial Court, which in its order, dated 21-9-1992, has observed that by moving the amendment application, the disposal of the suit would certainaly be delyed, but in the interest of justice, it felt it necessary to allow the same. The learned Additional Commissioner has also concurred with the finding, recorded by the learned trial Court and has rightly dismissed the revision petition, in limine, as the suit is still pending before the learned trial Court and the revisionist has ample opportunity to file evidence, in rebutted of the same or to file amendment of his written statement, accordingly, if he so desires and therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist, who has miserably failed to substantiate his claim. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am also of the view that the learned Courts below, were perfectly justified in rendering the impugned orders. No illegality or mate irregualrity, in the exercise of their jurisdiction, has been committed by them an therefore, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition, having no force, very reichly deserves dismissal, outright. Needless to say, since the disposal of the suit has unnecessarily been delayed so much, the learned trial Court shall dispose of the suit expeditiously after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties, concerned.