- (1.) THIS is a revision petition, preferred against the judgment and order dated 14-11-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commis sioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of the order dated 27-1-1995 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant 1'aets of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act against the defendant, Har Narain and others with the prayer that the plaintiffs be declared occupant tenants in possession (asami in class 3) over the disputed land as detailed at the foot of the plaint and the defendant respondent, Har Narain has no any concern with the suit-land and if his possession is found over the same, the same may be expunged. The learned trial Court by means of its order dated 30-10-1993 decreed I he aforesaid suit. Later on, a restoration application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC was moved on behalf of the aforesaid defendant respondent, Har Narain to set aside the aforesaid order dated 30-10-1993. On 27-1-1995, the learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid restoration. pplicalion and set aside the aforesaid order dated 30-10-1 Nd decree dated 14-2-94. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court aNd dismissed the ap peal on 14-11 -96. Hence this revision peti tion. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the revisionist, it was contended that the learned trial Court il legally set aside the judgment and decree dated' 30-10-1993/14-2-1994 without recording any clear-cut finding regarding non service of notice upon the defendant; that the learned Courts below have not considered the relevant facts and cir cumstances of the case and recorded an erroneous and perverse finding against the revisionist; that without any sufficient ground and reason, the learned trial Court allowed the restoration application of the defendant, Har Narain and has passed a wholly illegal, unsustainable order dated 30-10- 1993. In reply, the learned Counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the learned trial Court has advanced the cause of natural justice between the par ties by means of the impugned order dated 30- 10-1993 and the learned lower appel late Court has also correctly upheld the aforesaid order as such the same may be maintained.
(3.) I have closely and carefully ex amined the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records of the case on file. On a bare perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that in the facts am' circumstances of the instant case, the learned trial Court has rightly set aside the aforesaid ex pane judgment and decree dated 30-10-1993/14-2-1994. It is well set tled that in such a matter, liberal approach should be adopted. No miscarriage of jus tice has been caused by the aforesaid order dated 27-1-1995, setting aside the ex-party order dated 30-10-93. the learned lower appellate Court has also properly ex amined the points at issue and upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court. No error of fact, law or jurisdiction has been committed warranting any inter ference in this revision petition by this Court. To my mind, the aforesaid im pugned order dated 14-11 -96 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner is quite just, proper, sustainable, well-founded and wholly warranted in law. As such if must be sustained. I sec no reason to inter fere with the impugned order dated 14-11 -1996 which is well-discussed and well reasoned.;