C.L.VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 25-1-1994 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi in Revision No. 78/73/17 of 91-92. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision as abated.
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that Smt. Shushila Devi and others filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, which was decreed ex-parte on 28-12-1989. Restoration application for recalling that order was rejected by the trial Court on 22-11-1991. A revision was filed against that order which was abated. Hence, the present revision has been filed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It appears that Baldeo died during the pendency of the revision. On 17-11-1993 an application was moved by the opposite party that the revision be abated as application for substitution had not been moved. Application was moved by the revisionist on 12-1-1994. The learned Additional Commissioner passed an order for abating the revision on account of non-substitution within time. He took note of the fact that even after the objection being taken on 17-11-1993, the revisionist sat quiet and did not move required application immediately thereafter. In these circumstances, application filed on 12-1-1994 could not be treated to be within time and has been rightly dismissed. It is also note worthy that the suit had been decreed ex-parte and restoration application took had been dismissed. This shows the attitude of the revisionist. The learned Additional Commissioner rightly abated the revision. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has exercised his discretion carefully and there is no illegality or material irregularity in the order to justify a revisional interference by this Court. 6. In view of the above, revision lacks substance and is accordingly dismissed. Revision dismissed;