S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the order dated 11 -3-1997 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Mordabad Division, Mordabad arisingoul. of the order dated 29-8-i 995 passed by the trial Court on a restoration application in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA&LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Chandra Prakash and Brahm Pal instituted a suit under Sec­tion 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act, im-pleading Hori Singh and others as defen­dants for declaration on the basis of a Will dated 17-10-1984 over the suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial decreed the aforesaid suit on 26-8-1994. Later on a restoration applica­tion was moved on behalf of the defendant to set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 26-8-1994. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 29-8-1995 rejected this restoration application. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has allowed this appeal, set aside the aforesaid impugned order dated 29-8-1995, allowed the afore said restora­tion application moved on behalf of the defendant set aside the judgment and decree dated 26-8-94 and remanded the matter in question to the trial Court to decide the same on merits in accordance with law after affording reasonable and due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Hence this revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that on 17-10-1984 a registered Will was executed in favour of the appellants, Chandra Prakash and Brahm Pal Singh ; that a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act was instituted and service of notice was effected upon the defendants-opposite parties but they failed to appear before the Court despite due notice ; that a restoration application was moved by the defendant opposite par­ties which was dismissed and the first ap­peal was preferred which was allowed and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court for decision on merits after afford­ing reasonable and due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned ; that the aforesaid restoration application was highly time-barred and the aforemen­tioned appeal has also been allowed illegally by the learned lower appellate Court; that the aforesaid first appeal was also highly time-barred without any ap­plication under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act; that the learned Addition­al Commissioner has not considered the evidence on record and has allowed the appeal overlooking the legal principles and requirements of law. In support of his contentions, he has cited case laws reported in 1998 ACJ 119 (SC), AIR 1984 MP 416 ; AIR 1989 MP 237; 1991 Rajas-thanNirnaySangrah201 (HC) 1987RD4 (HC), 1980 AWR 101 and AIR 1964 SC 215. But these case laws were not produced for perusal. In reply, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the defendant-respondents had no knowledge or notice of the aforesaid suit and the plaintiff-appellant had obtained in ex-party decree on the basis of a Will on 26-8-1994 ; that the aforesaid first appeal was well within time and has been rightly allowed in consonance the provisions of law by the learned Additional Commis­sioner and as such the impugned order dated 1 l-3-1997should be sustained.
(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On perusal the record it is amply clear that the learned lower appellate Court has properly analysed, discussed and considered the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has examined the points at issue in correct perspective of law and has drawn a conclusion and inference to the effect that the ex pane judgment and decree was ob­tained by the plaintiff-appellants against the defendants-respondents by restoring to forged and fabricated service of sum­mons upon the defendants-respondents. Having closely scrutinized the matter in question, I find that this conclusion and inference drawn by the learned additional Commissioner is cogent and convincing. I find no reasons to disagree with the same.;