S.P.PANDEY - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act), preferred against the judg­ment and order, dated 19-9-1990, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dismissing the ap­plication for restoration, filed in the case.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that against the order dated 22-11-1983, passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act, first ap­peal No. 4/2/32 of 1984-85 was preferred before the learned Additional Commis­sioner, on 7-12-1983. On 3-5-1985, this appeal stood dismissed in default. The ap­pellant filed a restoration application on the same day, in which 8-8-1985 was fixed for hearing. On this date, the applicant could not appear and the restoration ap­plication, dated 3-5-1985 was dismissed, in default, in presence of the respondents 4 and 5. Against the order dated 8-8-1985, another application for restoration moved on 28-8-1985, in which 30-1-1986 was fixed for hearing. On 30-1-1986, the learned Counsel for the respondent was present, while the applicant again ab­sented and thus this application for res­toration, dated 28-8-1985 was dismissed, in default on 30-1-1986. Another restora­tion application was moved on 10-2-1986 to set aside the order, dated 30-1-1986 and 4-4-1986 was fixed for hearing on this ap­plication, on which date, this restoration application was again dismissed in default. Another restoration application was moved the same day to set aside the order dated 4-1-1986. A number of dates were fixed for hearing on this application and ultimately, on 26-7-1990, this restoration application, dated 4-4-1986 was allowed, there by restoring the restoration applica­tion, dated 10-2-1986, moved against the order, dated 30-1-1986. On 14-9-1990, this application dated 10-2-86 was heard, on merits, exparte and 19-9-1990 was fixed for orders, on which date, this application was finally dismissed. It is against this order that this revision petition has been preferred before i he Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, on file. For the revisionist, ii was contended that while deciding the applica­tion, dated 10-2-1986, the learned Court, below, should have considered the ground for absence on 30-1-1986 and not the con­duct of the applicant or his Counsel on the earlier dates and as such, the learned Court below has erred in doing so that the impugned order is no order in the eyes of law as the learned Court, below, has erred in not considering the explanation, tendered for the absence of the revisionist and as such, this revision petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In reply, the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that the orders passed by the learned Court below is just and proper which has been passed after considering and discussing full facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the conduct of the revisionist, which for no interference in this revision petition and as such, this revision petition, being devoid of any force deserves to be dismissed, outright.
(3.) I have carefully and closely ex­amined the submissions, made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and the relevant record, on file. A bare perusal of the record reveals that the learned Ad­ditional Commissioner has properly and thoroughly analysed, considered and dis­cussed the relevant and material facts and circumstances of the instant case and has exhaustively dealt with the same. Became to the conclusion that the revisionist adopted dilatory tactics, both before it as well as before the learned trial Court as his mo to was only to delay the final disposal of the cases. It is noticeable that the revisionist remained present only to file the restoration application after restora­tion applications but, by and large, failed to appear before the Court on the date fixed for its hearing. The learned Court below has specifically mentioned the conduct of the revision's on each and every date, fixed before it. I entirely agree with the conclusion, drawn by it. In view of the facts of the instant case, the conduct of the revisionist can very easily be catagorised as dilatory and such practice should always be discouraged. It is a fact that the first appeal, in question, was filed on 7-12-1983 and even after the lapse of about 17-18 years, nothing concrete has happened for the final disposal of the case except either dismissal in default or filing of the restora­tion application after restoration applica­tions. It appears that the revisionist is bent upon to prevent the final disposal of the case. I do not find any illegality or material irregularity, on the part of the learned Court, below, in theexercise of its jurisdic­tion and judicial discretion, in holding that such conduct is nothing but dilatory on the part of the revisionist and see no good ground to interfere with the im­pugned order and as such, this revision petition, having no force, deserves to be dismissed outright.;