K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the judgment of Additional Civil Judge, Azamgarh in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 283 of 1975 Durga Prasad Singh, appellant v. State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent. The appeal was directed against the order dated 4-7-1975 passed by the Prescribed Authority on a restoration application moved by the petitioner and the restoration application was rejected.
(2.) IN this case the Additional Civil Judge has ordered as below :- "Appeal stands abated under Section 27 (1) of U. P. Ordinance 31 of 1975." The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has preferred this writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner urged before me that the Additional Civil Judge did not read the memorandum of appeal correctly and he has been moved only by quotation of section under which the appeal purported to have been filed before him. He further contended that mere mention of wrong section was not at all fatal to the hearing of the appeal before the Addl. Civil Judge. He invited my attention to para. 2 of the grounds of appeal before the lower appellate court and also the lebel of appeal which is appeal under Section 14 of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 against the order of S. D. O. Sadar and Prescribed Authority, Sadar dated 4-7-1975 passed in Case No. 1 of 1975 rejecting the restoration application of the appellant for the plots of village Kutauli etc. is as under :" He emphasised that the aforesaid portion in the memo of appeal would point out that the appeal was directed against the order rejecting the restoration application of the appellant-petitioner.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State opposite party contended that there was no sufficient cause for restoring the case and the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, hence the application for restoration was rightly rejected by the Prescribed Authority. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and in my opinion the Additional Civil Judge has patently erred in applying the provisions of Section 27 (1) of the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Ordinance, 1975 to the facts of the present case. It is well known that mere mention of wrong section does not prove fatal to the claim of a party and it is bounden duty of a court to look into the substance of the allegations and to decide the claim of a party in accordance with law.;