S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THESE are two revision petitions under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act (here in after referred to as the Act) preferred against the orders dated 26-8-1996 and 18-3- 1996 passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad in first appeal Nos. 92 and 93 of 1995-96/Rampur, arising out of an order dated 12-1-1995 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 167 of the Act. Since the subject-matter of con­troversy involved in both these revision petitions is similar, the same are being decided by this common judgment and revision petition No. 41 of 1995-96/Rampur shall be the leading case.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present revisions petitions are that the revisionist, Smt. Rekha Rani trans­fere filed an application before the learned trial Court for her name being recorded in the revenue records in place of Smt. Chhoti, transferor on 21-3-1994. Notice were issued to the parties con­cerned. On 18-3-1994 the learned trial Court rejected this application for want of evidence of the applicant. There after on a report dated 6-1-1995 submitted by the tehsil concerned the learned trial Court vested the land in dispute in the Gaon Sabha concerned under Section 167 of the Act on 12-1-1995. Aggrieved by this order two first appeals were preferred. First ap­peal No. 92 of 1995-96/Rampur was filed on 28-6-1995 by Smt. Chhoti while first appeal No. 93 of 1995-96/Rampur was filed on 1-5-1995 by Smt. Rekha Rani, along with applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid first appeals. The learned Additional Commissioner rejected these applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act on 12-3-1996. Revision petition No. 44 of 1995-96/Rampur has been preferred against this very order before the Board. After rejec­tion of the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, the appellant then moved an application on 18-3-96 for conversion of the first appeals into revision petitions. On 29-3-1996, the learned Additional Commissioner al­lowed these applications on payment of Rs. 100 as cost. This cost was paid but the appellant failed to amend the memoran­dum of the first appeals and therefore, the learned Additional Commissioner dis­missed the appeals as time-barred on 26-8-1996 in view of the provisions under Order VI Rule 18, CPC, It is against this order that revision petition No. 41 of 1995-96/Rampur has been preferred before the Board by Smt. Rekha Rani. I have heard the learned consel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. For the revisionist, it was contended in respect of Revision No. 44 that the order dated 18-3-1996 is illegal and without jurisdiction as the order dated 13-1-1995 of the learned trial Court under Section 167 of the Act has been passed without giving any notice to the revisionist ; that the learned lower appellate Court has illegally rejected the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, as the revisionist had no knowledge of the order dated 12-1-1996 of the learned trial Court passed on the report of theTahsildar concerned dated 6-1-1995 and as such the order dated 18-3-1996 passed by the learned Court below deserves to be set aside. In connection with the revision peti­tion No. 41 he has contended that the impugned order passed by the learned lower appellate Court is bad in law as there was no direction to the appellant in its order dated 29-3-1996 for incorporating any amendment in the memorandum of the first appeal; that in view of the order dated 29-3-1996 passed by the learned Court below, the first appeals would be deemed to have been converted into revision petitions and the learned Addi­tional Commissioner has erred in dismiss­ing the same under Order VI Rule 18, CPC, as it then was; that in any view of the matter the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal perverse and suffers from material irregularity and as such deserves to be set aside. In reply, the learned Counsel for the opposite party urged that since the revisionist has miserably failed to show any illegality or material irregularity on the face of the record, the learned Additional Commis­sioner was perfectly justified in passing the impugned order which have been passed after due appreciation of evidence on record and keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the law on the subject as it then was and as such these revision petitions having no force deserve to be dismissed outright.
(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties before me and have also gone through the relevant record on file. On a bare perusal of the record, it appears that the first appeals were filed along with applications under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Additional Commissioner, after analysing discussing and considering Ihe relevant and material facts, cir­cumstances and evidence on record of the instant case came to the conclusion that the appellant had full knowledge of the order dated 12-1-1995 passed" by the learned trial Court vesiing Ihe land in dispute in the Gaon Sabha concerned and rejected the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. I entirely agree with the views expressed by the learned lower appellate Court and do not see any good ground to interfere with the same and as such the revision petition No. 44 having no force deserves to be dismissed.;