S.P.PANDEY, j. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition preferred against the judgment and order dated 2-11-1993 passed by the learned Additional Commis­sioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, arising out of an order dated 8-9-1993 passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the UPZA and LR Act ( here in after in short referred to as {he Act).
(2.) BRIEF and relevant facts of the ciise are that the plaintiff, Nathua instituted a suit under Section 229-B of the Act wit the prayer that he be declared bhumidharwilh transferable rights over the suit land as detailed at the foot of the plaint. During the pendency of the case the learned trial Court by means of its order dated 8-9-1993 has ordered that the written statement be filed on the next date fixed i.e. 22-9-1993. Heretofore, 10-6-1993, 30-6-1993, 6-7-1993, 14-7-1993, 23-7-1993, 12-8-1993 and 25-8-1993 had already been fixed for the purpose. Aggrieved by this order dated 8-9-1993 an appeal was preferred. The learned lower appellate Court in view of the provisions as contained under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC has allowed the appeal. Hence this revision petition. The suit land is alleged to have been since transferred in favour of one Surcsh Chandra Karnwal. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the records on file. For the revisionist it was contended that the learned lower appel­late Court has committed manifest error of law in allowing the appeal and decreed the suit as it has not considered the entire facts and circumstances of the instant case; that the aforesaid impugned order is il­legal and quite against the provisions of law and as such it must be set aside. In reply the learned Counsel for the contesting opposite party urged that despite a num­ber of adjournment, neither the revisionist nor the opposite parly No. 2, Nagar Palika, Najibabad, Bijnor had filed the written statement before the learned trial Court and as such the opposite party Nathua moved an application before the learned trial Court to the effect that the opposite party Nathua be declared Bhumidhar with transferable rights on 28-1 -1977 and since thedcfendants were not filing their written statements in respect of their claims the suit of the plaintiff be decreed in accord­ance with the provisions as laid down under Order VIII, Rule 10 CPC ; that the same was rejected on 8-9-1993 by the learned trial Court and against this order an appeal was preferred which has been allowed by the learned Additional Com­missioner by means of his order dated 2-11-1993; that theNagar Palika, Najibabad, Bijnor moved an application for restora­tion against the order dated 2-11-1993 before the learned lower appellate Court and the same was dismissed on 1-6-1994 ; that later on a review petition along with an application under Section 5 of the In­dian Limitation Act was moved by the revisionist before the learned Additional Commissioner which was allowed by his order dated 11-10-1994 and there after a revision was preferred before the Board against the order dated 11 -10-1994 and the learned Member by means of his order dated 18-9-1995, allowed the aforesaid revision in favour of theopposite party No. 1, Nathua ; that the learned lower appel­late Court has rightly allowed the appeal which must besustaincd.
(3.) I have closely and carefully con­sidered the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the relevant records on file. On a close scrutiny of the relevant record it is manifestly clear that before the learned trial Court, the defendant miserably failed us file their written state­ment despite numerous adjournments granted by it and as such in view of the provisions as contained under Order VIII Rule 10 ("PC, the learned Additional Commissioner has rendered the aforementioned impugned order dated 2-11-93. The provisions of Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC reads as under: "Procedure when parlies fail to present written statement called for by Court.- Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same with inthe time permitted or fixed by the Court as the case may be the Court s'hall pronounce judg­ment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it think fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up." From a bare perusal of the aforemen­tioned provisions, the impugned order passed by the learned lower appellate Court is quite in consonance with the provisions of law which must be sustained. The revisionist has utterly failed to show any infirmity or any error of fact or juris­diction in the aforementioned order passed by the learned lower appellate Court so as to warrant any interference by this Court in this revision petition.;