S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a reference, dated 26-7-1996 made by the learned Additional Commissioner-I, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in respect of Revision Petition No. 18/4 of 1995- 96/Lalitpur, arising out of an order dated 18-10-1995 passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), recommending that the revision petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 18-10- 1995, passed by the learned trial Court be set aside.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs, Bhaiya Lal and another filed a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act against the State of U.P. etc., in which written statements were filed by the defendants. During the pendency of this suit, Defendants 3,4 and 5 moved an application dated 30-9-1995 for amendment in the written statement, in respect of bar of principle of res-judicata. Gokul Prasad plaintiff filed objection to the aforesaid application. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, concerned, came to the conclusion that the amendment, sought for involves a question of law and allowed the aforesaid application for amendment, moved by the defendants, rejecting the objections, raised by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by this order, a revision petition was preferred. The learned Additional Commissioner has made the present reference with his aforesaid recommendation. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, on file. The learned counsel for the revisionist has supported the reference and has submitted that the reference be accepted, revision petition be allowed and the impugned order, passed by the learned trial Court, be set aside. In reply, the learned counsel for the opposite party urged that in his referring order, the learned Additional Commissioner has not assigned any reason for setting aside the impugned order, passed by the learned trial Court; that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the apposite party by the learned lower revisional Court and as such, the recommendation made by it is ex parte one; that the amendment, sought for does not change the nature of the suit and the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the amendment application, in question, as a point of law in respect of the bar of the principle of res-judicata is involved in the instant suit and as such the recommendation, made by the learned Additional commissioner be rejected and the revision petition be dismissed. In this connection, my attention has been drawn towards order VI, Rule 17, CPC.
(3.) I have carefully and closely examined the submissions, made before me, by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records, on file. On a close scrutiny of the record, it is crystal clear that the learned trial Court has rightly allowed the aforesaid amendment application moved on behalf of the defendant-opposite party, as the proposed amendment concerns with an important question of law, in respect of application of res-judicata and as such, I see no reason to agree with the recommendation, made by the learned Additional Commissioner, in his referring order, dated 26-7-1996, as per which the learned lower revisional Court has recommended for setting aside the order, dated 18-10-1995, passed by the learned trial Court, on the aforesaid amendment application. To my mind, in order to promote the ends of substantive natural justice and to facilitate its course, it would be quite just equitable and proper to uphold the aforesaid impugned order, passed by the learned trial Court and to reject the instant reference, made by the learned lower revisional Court.;