S.R.YADAV - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order dated 15-7-2000 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division, whereby the substitution application has been dismissed as time barred.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused the relevant papers onfile. None is present on behalf of the otherside despite information as such, the revision has been ordered to proceed exparte. Briefly the facts of the case are that in first appeal, before the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, an application for substituting the heirs of deceased Dile Ram was moved and a prayer to the effect was made orally before the Court that the limitation was being sought for the date of knowledge of the death of deceased Dile Ram so the successor be brought on reocord. Today the learned Counsel for the revisionist attracted my attention towards the order of learned Additional Commissioner and submitted that it is during the course of argument the knowledge of the death of deceased revisionist came to the notice and on that very date the substitution application was moved. This substitution application has been moved alongwith the affidavit wherein a clearcut averment in para 3 has been made which shows that the applicant came to know about the date of death of deceased during the course of argument and the application for which has been moved on that very date. In the circumstances, it was duty of the Learned Additional Commissioner to have gone in the spirit of the application and the conduct of the client who has no any fault and the application should have been treated within time counting the days from the date of knowledge; in such matters the liberal view should also be taken. Apparently, this has not been done by the learned Additional Commissioner.
(3.) IN view of the above, I find force in the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the the revisionist as none appeared on behalf of the otherside to put up his case.;