- (1.) S. R. Lakha, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25-6-97 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Moradabad in Appeal No. 19/96-97. By the impugned order the learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial Court dated 18-11-96 and remanded the case to it for fresh decision.
(2.) BRIEFLY facts are that a suit under Section 176 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was filed and orders were passed ex-parte. The ex-parte order was set aside and the case was restored and 7-4-94 was fixed for filing objection on the qurras. On 18-11-96 the trial Court set aside the preliminary decree and dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved by this order the aforesaid appeal was filed in which the impugned order had been passed. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. From a perusal of the record it is obvious that final decree had been set aside on 31-3-94 and 9-4-94 had been fixed for filing objections on the lots. Dharampal Singh filed his objection. The learned trial Court did not consider the case on its merit and wrongly dismissed the suit itself. The learned Additional Commissioner has considered the matter in a proper judicial manner and passed a correct and equitable order which does not need any interference in revision. I entirely agree with the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner.
(3.) IN view of the above, revision has no force and is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .;