S.P.PANDEY, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA and LR Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 30-11- 1995, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal No. 77/66 of 1991-1992, remanding the case to the learned trial Court for decision, afresh, on merits, according to law, after affording due opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence to the parties, concerned.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that after the preliminary decree was passed by the learned trial Court, in a suit under Section 176 of the Act, the lots, submitted by the lekhpal, concerned were accepted with the consent of the parties, concerned, vide its final decree, dated 14-5-1992/12-8-1992. Ram Singh went up in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has set-aside the aforesaid final decree, passed by the learned trial Court and remanded the case to it for decision, afresh on merits, according to law, after affording due opportunity of being heard and adducing evidence, if any, to the parties concerned, vide his judgment and order, dated 30-11-1995 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Deoki Nandan etc. before the Board. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record on file. Assailing the impugned order, the bone of contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist inter alia, in a nut shell are, firstly, that since no objection was filed by Ram Singh and the final decree was passed by the learned trial Court, with the consent of all the parties, concerned, no first appeal was maintainable in law against such a consent decree and therefore, the learned Additional Commissioner has grossly erred in entertaining the same; secondly, the since the well, in question, belongs to all the brothers, co-tenure-holders, as the same was constructed by the grand-father of the parties, concerned, the claim of the opposite party, otherwise in this respect is illegal and uncalled for and therefore, such remand order is not justified in the eyes of law, which cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be allowed to sustain and this revision petition very richly deserves to be allowed, in toto. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply, urged that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as evidence on record, the learned Additional Commissioner was perfectly justified in remanding the case to the learned trial Court, especially when the case is still pending and the parties have ample opportunity to have their say and adducing evidence, in support of their respective claim and therefore, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal, outright.
(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the argument, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the relevant record on file. As a matter of fact, the learned Additional Commissioner has remanded the matter in question, to the learned trial Court on the ground that rules, on the subject, have not been observed, while passing the final decree not were the parties afforded due to support of their respective claim. He has, in fact, pinpointed the case of different parties and had rightly observed that such final decree has been passed by the learned trial Court against the rulers and law on the subject as well as facts of the case. I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record entirely agree with the views, expressed by him. It has rather come on the record that the parties were not afforded due and reasonable opportunity to have their say and adduce evidence, if any, while passing the final decree and therefore, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order and as such this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal outright, especially when the case is still pending and the parties have nothing to feel aggrieved or prejudiced by the impugned order, as they shall certainly get ample opportunity to have their say and adduce evidence if any, in support of there respective claim, before the learned trial Court.;