KISHAN SINGH Vs. PUTTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KISHAN Singh, has filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8-12-98 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-preferred a suit under Section 176 of the UPZA and LR Act before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant by declaring half and half share to the parties. On the basis of this preliminary decreed the final decree was prepared on 28-7-97. Aggrieved by this order defendants-appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner Kanpur Division as time barred which was dismissed as time barred. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the defendant-appellant argued that the suit under Section 176 of the UPZA and LR Act which was filed before the learned trial Court no notice was issued to the party. The case came up for hearing on 10-1-97 which was adjourned for 13-1-97. On which date written statement under the signature of defendant-appellant Kishan Singh was filed on 13-1-97. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by declaring half and half share to the plaintiff and defendant. On 13-1-97 the attendance of Kishan Singh defendant-appellant is there. The learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that it is time barred and he did not consider this fact that no notice was given to the defendant-appellant. Even the written statement which has been filed by so called Kishan Singh does not bear any identification of any Counsel and its hand written statement.