- (1.) S. P. Pendey This is a revision petition under Section 333 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred by Ram Sahai against the order, dated 28-5-2004, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi , in Appeal No. 46 of 2004, arising out of the orders, dated 15-1- 2003/25-1-2003 and 27-2-2004, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B of the Act.
(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties, on the point of admission of this revision petition and have also perused the record, on file. The thrust of contentions of the learned Counsel for the revisionist inter alia, in a nut-shell, is that since the restoration application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC, moved by the applicants, who were not parties to the suit, in question, was highly time-barred and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, has been filed, the learned trial Court was perfectly justified in rejecting the same and therefore, the learned Additional Commissioner has grossly erred in not appreciating this material aspect of the matter, in question. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, in reply, urged that the impugned order is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies and therefore, the same being not fit for admission, very richly deserves dismissal out right, in limine, as the appeal, in question, is still pending and the revisionist would certainly get ample opportunity to have his say on merits. I have closely and carefully considered the submissions made before me by the learned Counsel for the parties concerned and have also scanned the relevant records on file. As a matter of facts, after the rejection of the aforesaid restoration application, the applicants, Shrawan Kumar etc. preferred an appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner against the orders, dated 15-1-2003/25-1-2003 and 27-2-2004, passed by the learned trial Court and by the impugned order, the learned Additional Commissioner, after hearing both the parties concerned, vide his order, dated 28-5-2004, admitted the same and stayed the operation of the aforesaid orders passed by the learned trial Court, fixing 29-7- 2004 for hearing of the same, on merits. Nothing has, in fact, been done on merits of the same which is still pending and, naturally, the doors are still open to the parties, concerned to have their say on merits of their respective claim. They have nothing to worry about, as they shall certainly get ample opportunity of being heard before the learned Court of first appeal and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, am of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not amount to a case or proceeding, decided and no revision lies against such an order, being interlocutory, in nature. Whatever has been pleaded here by the revisionist may be raised by him before the learned Court, below, where the appeal is pending and therefore, I am of the definite view that this revision petition, being not maintainable, in law is not a fit case for admission, which very rightly deserves dismissal outright in limine. In view of the above, this revision petition, being not fit for admission, is accordingly, dismissed in limine and the impugned order, dated 28-5-2004, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, concerned, is hereby, confirmed and maintained. Let records be returned forthwith, to the Court, concerned. Parties to appear before the Court, concerned on 27-4- 2006. Revision dismissed. .;