ANIL SWARUP,J. - (1.) AN application by way of Second Appeal was moved in this Court on 18-3-1996 against the order of Additional Commissioner dated 11-12-1995 in Appeal No. 110/94-95 confirming the judgment and decree passed by Additional Sub Divisional Officer on 28-9-1993.
(2.) THE facts, in brief are as follows. A suit was filed under Section 182 of UPZA and LR Act by one Bhimnsen in the trial Court for Making of 'Kurre' on the basis of judgment passed on 10-1-1992. The 'Kurre' were filed by the Lekhpal which were contested by the OPs. The trial Court after hearing all the parties, confirmed the 'Kurre'. An appeal was filed against this order in the Court of Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner dis-allowed the appeal. The Second Appeal has now been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner. The appellant has filed written arguments. I have gone through the documents on record. The primary allegation made by applicant centers around the evidence given by the Lekhpal in the trial Court. He has alleged in para 3 that the statement of Lekhpal was recorded in the absence of appellant. Hence, this evidence cannot be read against the appellant. This issue was neither agitated in the first Appellate Court nor was a request made in the trial Court to examine the Lekhpal. The appellant participated in the proceeding in both the Courts below. Hence, they cannot raise this issue now. The trial Court has given its findings on the basis of the evidence on record and contrary to the averment made by Appellant, the lots prepared by Lekhpal were in accordance with the guidelines given in Rule 131.
(3.) THE appellant has also indicated that the trial Court had wrongly registered the suit under Section 182 of the UPZA and LR Act. Even for the sake of agreement it is admitted that the section mentioned was a wrong one, no injustice has been handed down to the parties as the case was considered purely on merits. However, no such issue was raised in the Courts below.;