- (1.) S. P. Pandey, J. This is a revision petition preferred against the order dated 6-9-1995 passed on a review petition filed against the judgment and order dated 22-4-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad arising out of the judgment and order dated 3 ()-7-1992 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff, Genda Lal instituted a suit under Section 229- B of the UPZA & LR Act with the prayer that the plaintiff is bhumidhar over the disputed suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint and the name of the defendant No. 1, Custodian Revenue Property, Moradabad be expunged from the revenue records. The learned Trial Court by means of its order dated 30-7-1992 dismissed the aforesaid suit. Aggrieved by this order an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Com missioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dis missed the appeal. Later on, a review peti tion was filed by the plaintiff, Genda Lal. The learned lower appellate Court by means of its order dated 6-9-1995 has dis missed this review petition as time barred. 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 the learned trial Court has not framed any issue in the suit concerned and as such this case be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision on merits in accordance with law. It was further urged that before consolidation, the dis puted suit plots were recorded in the name of the revisionist but later on, custodian was recorded over the disputed holding. In reply, the learned Counsel for tried opposite party has submitted that the consolidation proceedings have finished in the village concerned but no objection was raised by the revisionist during the consolidation proceedings in respect of the suit land and as such the suit of the plaintiff revisionist is barred by Section 49 of the U, P. C. H. Act; that the learned Courts below have rightly dismissed the claim of the revisionist. I have closely and carefully con sidered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file, which clearly reveals l hat the plaintiff- revisionist has miserably failed to prove his case before the learned trial Court. Even issues could not be framed of want of requisite details of the disputed holding as the learned trial Court has clearly men tioned in its order dated 30- 7-1992 that in the plaint, The suit plot Nos. 200 and 202 have been mentioned but in other papers concerning the suit plots reveal that the plots in question are different. The learned lower appellate Court has rightly upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
(3.) NO error of fact, law or jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Addi tional Commissioner so as to justify any interference in this revision petition by this Court. To my mind the aforesaid order dated 22-4-1993 passed by him is sus tainable and wholly warranted in law and as such it must be maintained. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed and the aforesaid impugned order dated 22-4-1993 passed by the learned Addition al Commissioner is liable to be confirmed and maintained.;