- (1.) RAM Janam Singh, Member Smt. Vakeela alias Sinni and others have filed this revision against the order dated 26-6-95 passed by learned Additional Commis sioner, Meerut Division.
(2.) REVISIONIST had filed a restoration application before the trial Court against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 13-8-92 passed by learned SDC in Gopal Singh versus Gaon Sabha and others. REVISIONISTs claimed that Dharam Singh before his death had executed a sale-deed in their favour and by virtue of that sale-deed they are the legal representatives of the deceased Dharam Singh hence the res toration application dated 20-7-93 deser ves to be allowed and the ex-pane judg ment and decree dated 13-8-92 deserve to be set aside. The learned trial Court rejected the restoration application on the ground that the case had been finally decided and no case is pending and hence the application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC had no relevance in the present con text and the said application was rejected under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC. This obser vation of the learned trial Court was con firmed by the learned Additional Commis sioner, Mecrul Division by his order dated 26-6-95. Aggrieved by this second revision is preferred before this Court. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the file carefully. Now the points in consideration are whether restoration application dated 20-7-93 for setting aside the ex-pane, judg ment and decree dated 13-8-92 passed by learned SDO is maintainable or not. Under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC and under Order I, Rule 10, CPC the learned trial Court rejected the restoration application on the ground that the suit had been finally disposed of and no case was pending. Had it been otherwise then the restoration ap plication would have been considered. Revisionist-applicant cannot be said to be aggrieved by this order because the ex-pane decree was passed against Dharam Singh and the present revisionists were not parties in that ease passed against them. The observations of both the Courts below are based on fact and law and need no interference.
(3.) I, therefore, find no force in the present revision and accordingly it is dis missed. Revision dismsised. .;