S.R.YADAV, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 30-1-96, arising out of an order dated 14-11-91 passed by the trial Court whereby the restoration application was allowed.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the relevant papers on file. As nobody appeared on behalf of other side despite information as such the revision is heard ex. pane arid is decided accordingly. A perusal of file reveals that a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act was instituted in the trial Court for decla­ration of their rights in respect of the land detailed down at the foot of plaint. On institution of suit notices were issued and in pursuance thereof the parties appeared and decree dated 7-2-91 was passed whereby the suit preferred was allowed. Against which Rajaram and others moved restoration application which was allowed by the order dated 14-11-91. It is against this order a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, which has been heard by the learned Addi­tional Commissioner and decided by the aforesaid impugned order.
(3.) IN this matter the point involved is whether the restoration application preferred in the trial Court has been properly dealt with or not and whether hearing of revision the learned Additional Commissioner has considered the points involved in the matter or not? So far as the impugned order passed by the trial Court is concerned, mere its perusal shows that the revisionist here has not even been is­sued notices to put up their case which is against the principle of natural justice. It was duty of the trial Court to issue notice before passing any order. Apparently it has not been done while dealing with the mat­ter the learned Additional Commissioner also not considered the points involved in the matter and he has dealt with the entire case with very careless manner which is no t correct in respect of setting aside the impugned order passed by the trial Court and he has also stayed the order whereby the suit was decreed. Meaning thereby that he has reopen the entire matter. The Courts are not to complicate the matter. In the circumstances, I find there is gross il­legality committed by the Courts below as such their orders cannot be sustained.;