- (1.) THIS refer ence has been sent by the learned Addi tional Commissioner Bareilly Division by his order dated 27-3-93 in which he was recommended that the order of the trial Court dated 14-2-92 be set aside and the case be remanded to trial Court for decid ing the case afresh.
(2.) THE trial Court has rejected the restoration application dated 8-6-92 on the ground that the restoration applica tion is highly time barred and the same has no sufficient ground. THE trial Court has Decided the case on 7-1-88 without hearing the other party. Sri Kaka Singh has moved a restoration application on 6-6-92 against the ex-pane order dated 7-1-88. THE trial Court has rejected this restoration ap plication on 14-9-92 against which a revision was preferred before the Addi tional Commissioner and the learned Ad ditional Commissioner, Bareilly has recommended for setting aside the order dated 14-9-92 and he has also recom mended that the case should be Decided afresh on merits. After perusal of the original records and the order of the learned Addi tional Commissioner, it is clear that on 7-1-88 the case was Decided by the trial Court in a very haste manner hence it is necessary to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the other party. Hence the recommendation of the learned Addition al Commissioner is according to rules. Reference is accepted; the order of the trial Court is set aside and the case is remanded back to it for deciding the case afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to the other party. Reference allowed. .;