S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act preferred against the judgment and order dated 23-3-99 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 29-11 -1998 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 176of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Tansukh instituted a suit under Section 176 of the UPZA and LR Act for partition of his 1/3 share in the land in suit as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The leaned trial Court through its order dated 23-11-1998 has rejected the lots filed by the Lekhpal and has directed the lekhpal concerned to file quarras as indicated in the body of the aforesaid judg­ment and order dated 28-11-1998. Ag­grieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has dismissed the appeal on 23-3-1999. Hence this revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the revisionist it was contended that the Lekhpal concerned had prepared the lots on the basis of the possession of the parties over the suit plots keeping in view the valuation of the land in question and the quality but that has been illegally rejected; that all the parties to the partition suit were satisfied regarding lots prepared by the Lekhpal concerned but the same has been illegally rejected by the learned trial Court which has not assigned any cogent reason therefor, that the lots prepared by the Lekhpal carefully in ac­cordance with the provisions of Rule 131 of the UPZA Rules ; that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are quite illegal, perverse, erroneous and without jurisdiction and as such the im­pugned order dated 23-3-1999 be set aside. In reply the learned Counsel for the opposite party urged that the aforementioned im­pugned order is quite sustainable and wholly warranted in law and as such it must be maintained as it has been passed keeping in view the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case.
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the relevant records on file. On a perusal of the records it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court has properly examined the matter in question in true perspective of law and has rightly rejected the lots prepared by the Lekhpal concerned and directed the Lekhpal to file lots as per the observations made in the aforesaid order dated 28-11-1998 passed by the learned trial Court. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly examined the points at issue and has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court. The con­clusion and inference drawn it are quite plausible and sound in law and as such the same must be sustained. The lots filed by the Lekhpal concerned have rightly been rejected by the learned Courts below.;