C.L.VERMA, j. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed by Saltan and others against the order dated 26-2-99 passed by learned Additional Commission, Gorakhpur in Appeal No. 444/962/A-90, arising out of suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act.
(2.) BY the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial Court dated 23-8-90 passed in suit No. 383. Briefly the facts of the case are that Ganesh and another instituted a suit for the declaration of their right. On 8-4-1983 a compromise was filed by the parties which was verified by the Additional Officer 1. The matter went on and on 11-10-88 the suit was decreed. On 25-4-89 Saltan and two others moved an application for setting aside that decree, stating therein that they had no knowledge about the same. The trial Court rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved by this order Saltan and others filed an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner before the learned Additional Commissioner which was also dismissed. They have now come up in present revision.
(3.) FROM a perusal of the file it appears that in this case summons were issued. Registered notices were also issued and thereafter publication was done in a news paper. The trial Court on a full and proper consideration of the circumstances of the case found that the defendant had knowledge of the suit. The suit remained pending for a period of nearly six years. It is not possible to believe that the defendants who are the residents of the same village did not hear about the suit for this long time. In his order dated 11-10-88 the trial Court considered the material on record and held that the plaintiffs had proved to be sole bhumidhars of the land in question. The defendant had knowledge of the suit and did not care to participate in the proceedings. The learned trial Court as well as learned Additional Commissioner had considered the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper way and have rejected the application for setting aside the order. There is no illegality or any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction committed by the Courts below which may warrant interference by this Court.;