MANOJ SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 2-9-1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra whereby he has dismissed the appeal filed against the order dated 23-2-94/16-6-93 passed by the trial Court in a case under Section 209 of UPZA & LR Act.
(2.) HEARD the Counsel for the revisionist. None appeared on behalf of otherside. The Counsel for the revisionist pleaded that the ex parte decree has been passed by the trial Court against the revisionist and subsequent restoration application was also rejected. Thereafter the applicant/revisionist has been denied his legal rights of hearing by upholding the order of trial Court by the Additional Commissioner on 2-9-90.
(3.) HAVING heard the Counsel for the revisionist and perusing the relevant papers on file it appears that the revisionist moved an application for recalling the ex parte order and decree dated 16-6-93 passed by the trial Court. The trial Court after hearing to the parties and considering the evidences rejected the restoration application on 23-2-94. Against this very order an appeal was filed before the Commissioner, Agra Division, which has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 2-9-98, hence this revision. Here I find that both the Courts below have observed that the revisionist has been making attempt to linger on the case on the pretext of non-appearance. File reveals that the order dated 5-6-93 passed by the trial Court is ex parte one and has been passed without framing of proper issues in a summary manner. The order of learned Additional Commissioner is not on the basis of records and hence the same deserves to be set aside. In the circumstances, I find force in the argument put forth by the Counsel for the revisionist and so the revision deserves to be allowed.;