S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS , a refer­ence dated 25-4-1989 made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, in respect of revision petition No. 28 of 1988-89/Moradabad with the recommendation that the revision petition be allowed and the order dated 16-2-1987 passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) against the defendant with the prayer that the plaintiff be declared sirdar over the disputed land as detailed at the got of the plaint and the names of defendants 1 and 2 be expugned from the revenue records. During the pendency of this suit on 7-10-1977 an application along with an affidavit dated 7-10-1977 was moved on behalf of Sir Amba Prasad Desh Sewak and Chela Yogi Raj Tyagi Sohand Swaroop to the effect that Yogi Raj Tyagi Sohand Swaroop has died on 11-7-1977 and the applicant who is his desciple and legal representative, be substituted in place of the deceased. As per the order dated 29-1-1989, the name of Sir Amba Prasad Desh Sewak desciple of Yogi Raj Tyagi Sohand Swaroop was recorded in place of the deceased Yogi Raj Tyagi Sohand Swaroop. On 15-7-1981, an ap­plication was moved on behalf of Sri Amba Prasad Desh Sewak for amendment in the plaint. Again on 16-7-1984 and 26-7- 1984 the applications for amendment in the plaint were moved. As per the order dated 26-7-1984, the aforesaid applications for amendment in the plaint were allowed separately. Again on 24-10- 1985, an ap­plication was moved to withdraw the suit and the learned trial Court has allowed this application on 1-11-1985. On 20-12-85, an application for setting aside the order dated 1-11- 1985 and to decided the suit on merits was viewed. By means of. its order dated 16-2-1987, the learned trial Court has allowed this application for res­toration dated 20-12-1985 and set aside the aforesaid order dated 1-11-1985, restoring the case to its original number for decision in accordance with law. A revision petition was preferred against the aforesaid order dated 16-2-1987. The learned lower re-visional Court has made this reference with ilk-aforesaid recommendation. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parlies and have also perused the records on file. For the revisionist it was contended that this reference be accepted the revision petition be allowed and the aforesaid order dated 16-2-1987 passed by the learned trial Court be set aside as per the aforesaid recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner. In reply the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the order dated 16-2-1987 passed by the learned trial Court is quite legal and sustainable but the learned lower revisional Court has erroneously recommended for setting aside the same that the findings recorded by the learned lower revisional Court are quite. Perverse and unreasonable which are liable to be reversed as Krishna Kumar was not legally authorised to withdraw the suit and in the application for withdrawal of the suit, there was no prayer for filing a fresh suit and as such the aforesaid order dated 16-2-1987 passed by the learned trial Court must be maintained, the instant reference be rejected, revision petition be dismissed and the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for decision on merits after hearing the parties concerned. In support of his contentions, he has cited the case laws reported in 1977 RD 255 (BR) and 377.
(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the panies and have also scanned the relevant records no file. On a close scrutiny of the record it is abundantly clear that the learned lower revisional Court has thoroughly properly and exhaustively analysed, discussed and considered the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the instant case and has drawn a conclusion to the effect that the revision petition be allowed and the aforesaid order dated 16-2-1987 passed by the learned trial Court be set aside. It has properly examined ail the points at issue in correct perspective of law. It is also worthwhile to mention here that a number of documents, filed on behalf of the opposite parties are uncertified photo copies of the original documents and the certified copies of the same have not been filed despite specific orders of the Court in this respect. These uncertified copies are inad­missible in evidence.;