S.R.YADAV, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision preferred against the order dated 10-1 1-97 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad arising out of an order dated 19-8-95 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file. 3. The learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the order dated 4-3-87 passed by the learned trial Court without hearing the revisionist as no proper service was made upon him, that the application for setting aside the ex, parte decree/order mentioned above was given on 2-2-89 which was rejected by the learned trial Court without applying its mind as such, by upholding the trial Court order, the learned lower appellate Court/learned Additional Commissioner also erred in law in its order dated 10-1 1-97 and hence the revision be allowed. In reply it is submitted that the ap­plication dated 2-2-89 was without ap­plication under Section 5 of Limitation Act and hence the same has rightly been rejected by the learned trial Court and the lower appellate Court also properly upheld the order passed by the learned trial Court as such the revision deserves to be dismissed. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records, the relevant facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B/209 of UPZAand LR Act was instituted in respect of the land as detailed down at the foot of the plaint. On the institution of suit notices were issued to otherwise which are reported to have been served by way of Chaspangi; on the basis of above said service the trial Court proceeded to decide the matter and an order dated 4-3-87 was passed against which a restoration application dated 2-2-89 was moved with the pleading that the order dated 4-3-87 is ex, pane one ; the learned trial Court passed an order on 19-8-95 whereby the application dated 2-2-89 stood rejected against which the first appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division preferred and the same has been heard and decided by the learned Additional Commissioner vide the order dated 10-11-97. The same has been chal­lenged before the Board which is being heard by this Court.
(3.) THE main point for consideration in the instant matter appears to be whether the trial Court as well as the lower appel­late Court has deal with the matter proper­ly or not? It is admitted that the ex pane decree dated 4-3-87 was passed by the learned trial Court keeping in view the Chaspangi service over the revisionist here. Though the revisionist by way of application dated 2-2-89 disputed the ser­vice over them and by the said application he pleaded for quashing the order dated 4-3-87. During the course of hearing dates were given to them and sometimes for the adjournment application of the revisionist costs were also imposed which is clear from the order dated 19-8-95 whereby the trial Court mentioned that on 13-2-95 and 1 -3-95 the adjournment were sought by the revisionist, they stood allowed on payment of cost. The order dated 19-8-95 also reveals that on that very date the revisionist prayed orally for adjournment though the reasons for the adjournment are not clear best known to them. The SDO concerned despite oral request refused the adjournment by saying that no Court-fee was paid. I am unable to under­stand the oral request was made for ad­journment then what was the necessity for paying Court-fee. This approach and finding of the learned trial Court appears to be ambiguous and nothing can be understood from such approaches. Instead of passing the clear cut and speaking order regarding the adjournment of the case the learned trial Court proceeded without giving op­portunity to the revisionist for deciding the application dated 2-2-89, dismissed the application. Further more the file reveals - that 4 issues were framed in the matter for adjudication of points in dispute between the parties but in the order dated 4-3-87 neither those issues have been mentioned nor any evidence in accordance with law have been taken and the declaratory suit stood decided without any evidence men­tioning therein that the revisionist did not turn up to adduce evidence. It appears that the learned trial Court in such a hurry the entire case hushed up which shows judicial mockery. It also reveals that if the services were challenged then the matter should have been examined and proper finding to the effect ought to have been recorded whether the services were proper or not. But neither the learned trial Court nor the lower appellate Court has touched this point. The Courts are to adjudicate the points of contentions with the intention to give justice to the parties in accordance with the provisions of law and for such purposes a careful examination of the whole matter is required. But in this case nothing of the sort has been done by the Courts below ; meaning thereby that the Courts below did not take pain to apply their judicial minds and if the minds of the Courts are not applied in accordance with law such orders should not be sustained.;