Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bairister Singh for respondents No. 4 to 6.
(2.) SUIT filed by the plaintiff -petitioner under Section 229 -B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act was decreed ex -parte against the defendant -respondent vide Judgment and order dated 31.8.1988. After about 4 years, the predecessor -in -interest of respondents 1st set moved an application dated 22.1.1992 to recall the order dated 31.8.1988 on the ground that notices and summons were not served upon him and it was only 21.1.1992 when he heard rumour in the village that the name of the petitioner has been recorded over the land in dispute then he made inquiry and came to know about the ex -parte Judgment and order. Trial court after considering the objection filed by the plaintiff -petitioner as well as record has recorded a finding that there is nothing on record which may go to show that defendants were ever issued any summons and there was only a receipt which goes to show that notices were sent by registered post which also did not return back after service. In the absence of any summons having been issued and without there being direction by the court to serve by registered post, it appears that the plaintiff -petitioner had surreptitiously sent registered post and filed the receipt without there being any order of the court.
(3.) IN view of above, the trial court has rightly allowed the restoration application set aside the ex -parte Judgment and order and the revision filed against the said order has rightly been dismissed. The findings recorded by the trial court for setting aside the ex -parte Judgment and decree are findings of fact based on proper appraisal of evidence and material on record and hence, are not liable to be interfered by this Court in exercise of power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;