A.P.Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri H.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
(2.) THE petitioner had filed a restoration application in a suit filed under Section 229B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5, alleging that it was ex-parte and, therefore, the same should be restored and the matter should be decided on merits. THE restoration application was rejected and the revision filed against the same has been dismissed, against which the petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside the said orders on the ground that the orders impugned are erroneous in law. The suit was filed under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R., 1950 Act by Shyam Narayan-respondent No. 3 arraying his grand-father Ram Niranjan as a defendant. The following pedigree would be relevant to understand the said controversy: JUDGEMENT_548_ADJ2_2011Image1.jpg It is alleged that in the suit an order was passed and the recall whereof was sought by Ram Niranjan. Subsequently, he compromised the matter and on the basis of such compromise which was entered into, the suit was admittedly decreed in favour of the respondent No. 3-plaintiff.
(3.) IT is undisputed that the tenure holder Ram Niranjan was very much alive and he did not question the correctness of the compromise or the decree passed by the trial Court. It appears that during the lifetime of Ram Niranjan, an application was moved by the petitioner on 4th November, 1991 for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 28th June, 1986. This was admittedly done after five years of the passing of the decree and during lifetime of Ram Niranjan itself. The trial Court after noticing the aforesaid fact rejected the said application on the ground that the same was barred by time and even otherwise, the application had not been moved by Ram Niranjan, who was the recorded tenure holder. Ram Niranjan died on 14.7.1994 and the trial Court passed the order on the petitioner's restoration application on 28.8.1996.;