S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a ref­erence dated 28-2-1997 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in respect of revision petition No. 155 of 1995-96/Moradabad with his recommen­dation that the revision petition be al­lowed and the order dated 25-6-1996 passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs Afsar Ali and others instituted a suit under Section 229-B ol the UPZA and LR Act for declaration over the disputed holding as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial decreed the aforesaid suit dated 25-6-1996. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Com­missioner has made this reference with the aforesaid recommendation. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist it was submitted that the aforesaid reference be accepted, revision petition be allowed and the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court be set aside. In reply, the learned Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the aforesaid reference be rejected and the revision petition be dis­missed as the learned trial Court has passed the aforesaid order in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence on record.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. Having closely scrutinised the matter in question, I find that the learned lower revisional Court has properly analysed discussed and considered the relevant and material facts as well as evidence on record in correct perspective of law and has recorded a clear and categorical finding that the aforesaid order dated 25-6-1996 passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.;