S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the order dated 5-5-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi arising out of an order dated 11-10-1983 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZ And LR Act.
(2.) BRIER and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Ganga instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZ And LR Act against the IJ.P. State and the Gaon Sabha concerned for declaration over the suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court decreed the suit ex-pane on 15-7-1974. Later on, a res­toration application was moved on 24-11-1981 to set aside the aforesaid order dated 15-7-1974. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 11-10-1983 set aside the aforesaid order dated 15-7-1974 and restored the case to its original num­ber. Aggrieved by this order a revision petition was preferred. During the pen­dency of the revision an application for impleadment was moved on behalf of the opposite parties Nand Lal and Ors. The learned lower revisional Court by means of its order dated 5-5-1993 allowed the aforesaid application and passed an order to the effect that in the interest of justice Nand Lal is impleaded. Hence, this second 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 Nand Lal, Respondent No. 3 was no party to the original suit but the learned lower revisional Court has illegal­ly allowed the impleadment application moved on behalf of Nand Lal and Ors.; that the leaned Additional Commissioner has not considered the maintainability of the application and the question of limitation and as such the aforesaid order be set aside ; that no cogent reason for impleadment of Nand Lal has been given in the aforesaid order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. In support of his conten­tion, he has cited the case laws reported in 1979 RD 298, 1976 SC 1569, 1996 ALJ 63. In reply, the learned Counsel for the op­posite party submitted that the aforesaid order passed by the learned additional Commissioner is quite just and proper which must be sustained as in the interest of justice the impleadment of Nand Lal was necessary. In support of his contentions, he has cited case laws reported in 1970 RD 487, AIR 1982 AlId. 23, 1985 RD 197, 1970 RD 256 and 487 and 1973 RD has perusal but the aforesaid case laws were not produced.
(3.) I have carefully and closely con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a perusal of the records it is manifestly clear that the learned lower revisional Court has rightly allowed the application for impleadment moved on behalf of Nand Lal and Ors. To my mind, the learned Additional Commissioner has ad­vanced the ends of substantive natural jus-lice by imp leading Nand Lal so as to ad­judicate upon the matter in queslion properly and expeditiously. The learned Additional Com, is sioner has not com­mitted any error of fact, law or jurisdiction in imp leading the aforesaid Nand Lal.;