C.L.VERMA - (1.) THIS FAFO/Revision has been filed against the orders dated 2-12-1997 and 11-3-1997 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Azamgarh Division Azamgarh and Additional Officer Second Azamgarh.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case is that - The appellants/revisionists filed a suit No. 524/265 under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act against the respondents on 26-6- 1996 before the trial Court. A compromise application has been filed between the parties on 9-12-1996 before the trial Court. On the basis of that the trial Court decreed the suit on 1-1-1997 and said that the said decree will be part of the judgment. Against the said compromise decree respondent Ram Chandra has filed time barred restoration application on 5-2-1997. The said restoration application was allowed ex parte on 15-2-1997 by means of which he has stayed the previous order dated 1-1-1997. The appellants/revisionists filed a restoration application dated 24-2-1997 against the order dated 15-2-1997. The learned trial Court without considering the restoration application of the appellants/revisionist passed an order dated 11-3-1997 and set aside. The appellants/revisionists filed a revision No. 248/253-A of 1997 before the Additional Commissioner and the same was also dismissed on 24-12-1997. The appellants/revisionists feeling aggrieved against both the orders filed present FAFO/revision before this Court. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have given through the records and impugned orders passed by the Courts below.
(3.) THE Counsel for the appellants/revisionists submits that against the order dated 1-1-1997 a time barred restoration application dated 15-2-1997 was filed by the respondents before the trial Court but the trial Court without condoning the delay he has passed an ex parte order on 15-2-1997 against that restoration application was filed by the appellants/respondents dated 24-2-1997 and the same was also not considered by the trial Court. The trial Court without disclosing any reason passed by cryptic order dated 11-3-1997 and rejected the compromise decree dated 1-1-1997. In this regard the Counsel for the appellant placed reliance reported in 1987 R.D. Page No. 89 and 1990 RD Page 243; it has been held that in case any time barred application has been filed and the same has been allowed without condoning the delay; such order is without jurisdiction and he has also placed a reliance reported in 1992 Revenue Reporter page 373 (HC) Tulsi v. Dy. D.C.S. and others, in the said case it has been held that before passing any impugned order reasons should be given and he further submitted that the affidavit filed by the Brijesh Kumar Chauhan was never served upon the revisionist during this period he has died.;