B.P.NILRATNA - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 18-2-1997 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, in a appeal filed against the order dated 10-7-1995 passed by the trial Court in a suit under Section 176, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file. The learned Counsel for the revisionist has mainly submitted that the learned Additional Commissioner without going through the evidence on record dismissed the appeal as time barred hence prayed that the revision be allowed and the impugned order dated 18-2-1997 be set aside. In reply, it is contended that the appeal was time barred and no application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been moved and so the learned Additional Commissioner committed no illegality in passing the aforesaid impugned order as such, the revision be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on file it is evident that against the order dated 10-7-1995, an appeal was preferred on 17-10-1995 alongwith the affidavit wherein the reasons for non-filing the appeal within time has been explained and, therefore, I think the learned Additional Commissioner has committed apparent error in not considering the material on record and passed the aforesaid impugned order and many superior Courts are of the view that in such matter the liberal view should be taken by the Court. In the circumstance. I find force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the revision deserves to be allowed.;