S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), preferred against the judg­ment and order dated 9-7-1998 passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi arising out of an order dated 4-2-1995 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 176 of the Act.
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent in­stituted a suit under Section 1 76 of the Act for partition of his 1/4 share over the land in suit as detailed at the foot of the pliant. The learned trial Court after completing the requisite trial declared the aforesaid 1/4 share of the plaintiff-respondent on 30-6-1994 and ordered for preparation of lots. Later on final decree was passed on 4-2-1995. Aggrieved by this order, an ap­peal was preferred before the learned Commissioner who has, by means of his order dated 9-7-1998, rejected the aforesaid appeal as time barred. Hence this revision petition. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned DGC (R) appearing for the Gaon Sabha as well as the State of U.P. and have also perused the record on file. None appeared on be­half of the contesting respondent despite due notice, for the revisionist, it was con­tended that the first appeal was preferred on 13-8-1996 quite with in time from the date of knowledge i.e. 22-7-1996 ; that no finding has been recorded on the point of service of notice etc. by the learned lower appellate Court and the aforesaid appeal has been rejected arbitrarily on the point of limitation and as such this revision peti-lion be allowed and the case be remanded to the learned Commissioner for decision a fresh in accordance with law. The learned DGC (R) appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. expressed no objection to the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the records, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid first appeal was preferred with about one years delay. Con­sidering the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find that in order to promote the ends of substantiate natural justice and to facilitate its course, it would be quite just and equitable to condone the delay and decide the matter in question on merits in accordance with law and as such to achieve the ends of justice, it is a fit case to be remanded to the learned lower ap­pellate Court to decide the.matter in ques­tion on merits in accordance with law after affording due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.;