- (1.) THIS petition questions the correctness of the order passed by the trial court, namely, the Sub Divisional Officer -respondent no.14 and the affirmation thereof by the learned Commissioner, Gorakhpur -respondent no.1, whereby, in a suit under Section 229 -B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, the delay condonation application in support of the restoration application filed by Late Kishun Dev, the defendant in the suit, now represented by the respondents no.2 to 5, has been allowed and upheld.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present controversy are that the petitioner is the son of one Chhedi who is a co -plaintiff along with Indrasan and Balkhila in a suit under Section 229 -B of the 1950 Act. The defendant no.1 in the suit was Kishun Dev, now represented by the contesting respondents no.2 to 5, and the Gaon Sabha and the State were the other defendants. The suit was preferred claiming tenancy rights on the disputed holding on account of long standing possession and it appears that the said suit was dismissed on 29.9.1994. The plaintiffs in the suit filed a review application which was allowed on 14.11.1995 and the suit was decreed, reciting that the plaintiffs were of the weak and poor class who cannot bear the expenses of getting the sale deed executed in respect of the land in dispute, and that the defendant had accepted handing over possession of the land to the plaintiffs. The suit is alleged to have been decreed on the basis of a compromise.
(3.) THE defendant in the suit Kishun Dev, while he was alive, is stated to have filed the restoration application on 27.12.2007 after twelve years alleging that no compromise had taken place so as to allow the review application, and that the proceedings all appeared to be fabricated as the signatures of the Presiding Officer are doubtful and the order sheet and the dates on the review application are all overwritten. It was stated therein that the review was not even maintainable and there was no occasion to compromise the matter as according to the relationship of the parties and the pedigree table disclosed in paragraph 10 of the review application, the defendant also had his share to the extent of half of the holding. The compromise was described as forged and the service of notice on the defendant was also alleged as manipulated and fake.;