GIRDHARI LAL, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist on the point of admission.
(2.) IT has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the learned Additional Commissioner has wrongly dismissed the revision filed by the revisionist. Brief facts of this case is that the learned trial Court vide his order dated 7-11-94 has directed the SDO Kanpur to examine the matter whether patta is legal or patta is Farzi. This order was not challenged by the revisionist and the matter was inquired by the Additional Tahsildar and Additional Tahsildar has found that patta was not Farzi. No evidence was produced by the revisionist that the patta executed in favour of the opposite parties was a Farzi patta. Considering the above facts the learned Additional Commissioner has rejected the revision filed by the revisionist.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the revisionist has failed to show me any evidence which show that patta executed in favour of the opposite parties was Farzi patta.;