S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal under Section 331 of the UPZA & LR Aet preferred against the order dated 30-8-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradahad Division, Moradabad arising out of an order dated 20-1-1992 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 ease are that the plaintiffs, Vijay Kumar Tandon and Krishna Khandsari Ydyog, Gajraula through Vijai Kumar Tandon, instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act with the prayer that the declara­tion be made to the effect that the partners of the firm M/s. Krishna Khandsari Ydyog, Gajraula and defendant No. 2 has no con­cern with the aforesaid firm and the name of Vijai Kumar Tandon s/o Ghanshyam Das Tandon be recorded in place of Krish­na Murari Kapoor s/o Pran Nath Kapoor in class-A of the revenue records after the name of M/s. Krishna Khandsari Udyog, Gajraula in respect of the disputed holding as detailed at the foot of the plaint. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial decreed the aforesaid suit on 20-1-1992. 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 appeal on 30-8-1996. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the appellant, it was contended that in the suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act filed before the learned trial Court, no proper notice was served on the defendants appellants or the Slate of U.P. and the ex-pane order was passed on 20-1-1992; that when the appel­lant came to know about the aforesaid ex pane order, a restoration application was moved but the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the restoration applica­tion ; that the Gaon Sabha concerned was not implicated as party to the original suit, no issues were framed and no notice under Section 80, CPC was given to the State of U.P. ; that the learned lower appellate Court without considering the merits of the case of restoration application, rejected the restoration application on 30-8-1996 and as such the aforesaid impugned order be set aside and the case be remanded back to the trial Court for decision afresh after hearing the parties concerned. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are quite just and proper, which must be maintained ; that the learned Courts below have properly considered the evidence on record as well as the facts of the in: '.ant case. In support of his contention, he has cited the case law reported in 1980 RD164 (HC).
(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. From a bare perusal of the record, it is abundantly clear that the aforesaid firm was dissolved on 18-7-1988 and under a compromise and understanding, the name of Krishna Murari Kapoor was removed from the partnership of the aforemen­tioned firm and a new firm was established. The learned lower appellate Court has properly analysed, discussed and con­sidered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case and has rightly upheld the aforesaid order passed by the learned trial Court and dismissed the aforesaid appeal. The papers of dis­solution of the aforesaid firm dated 18-7-1988, partnership dated 18-7-88 and the order dated 7-4-1990 passed by the 1TO concerned are cogent and convincing evidence in favour of the plaintiff-respon­dents to establish the fact that the appel­lant is no longer partner of the afore mentioned firm and the name of Vijai Kumar Tandon has rightly been ordered to be recorded as partner of the aforesaid firm by the learned trial Court. A close ex­amination of the records clearly reveals that the restoration application dated 29-6-1995 was moved on behalf of the appel­lant Krishna Murari Kapoor and it has rightly been rejected on 6-4-1996 as the aforesaid restoration application moved on behalf of the appellant was highly time barred. Moreover, service of summons has been effected upon the appellant by means of affixation as per the procedure prescribed by law. The appellant has miserably failed to get summoned and ex­amined the process-server and witnesses to the aforesaid service and as such, the aforesaid order dated 6-4-1996 passed by the learned trial Court is quite just and sustainable in law. The learned lower ap­pellate Court has rightly upheld the aforesaid order dated 20-1-1992 passed by the learned trial Court.;