BAL KRISHNA Vs. SURAJ PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the judgment and decree dated 1-5-2000, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda, in revision No. 82/21 of 1997-98/Chitrakoot, arising out of the judgment and decree dated 9-1-1996, passed by the learned trial Court in a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the plaintiff, Suraj Pal instituted a suit under Section 229-B/209 of the Act against the defendants, State of U.P. etc. for declaration of his rights as bhumidhar of the land, in dispute, with transferable rights and expunction of the names of the defendants 3 to 5 from the revenue records as well as their ejectment, inter-alia pleading that since the land in dispute, was the ancestral property of his grand-father, Ram Bharosa and the defendants 3 to 5 got their names fraudulently recorded over the land, he is the rightful owner of the same. On notice, the defendants 3 to 5 contested the suit by filing their written statement, denying the allegations and inter-alia pleading that since they are in possession since before the abolition of zamindari, the plaintiff has no claim, whatsoever, on the land, in dispute and his suit deserves dismissal. They, however, did not appear thereafter before the learned trial Court to adduce their evidence in support of their claim. The learned trial Court, vide its judgment and decree dated 9-1-1996, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff against which he went up in revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has allowed the same and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, declaring the plaintiff bhumidhar of the land in dispute, vide his judgment and decree, dated 1-5-2000 and therefore, it is against this judgment and decree, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Bal Krishna etc. before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the revisionist and have also scanned the record on file. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the cases are tried as per the norms and procedure, prescribed by law and not otherwise. Here, in the instant case, on notice, the defendants contested the case by filing their written statement, which is on the record. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Section 229-D of the Act and orders in respect of the maintenance of the status quo were passed by the learned trial Court on 13-6-1991. It after recording the statement of the plaintiff, closed the evidence and decided the suit, vide its judgment and decree, dated 9-1-1996. As a matter of fact, no issues were framed by it, pin-pointing the points of dispute between the parties nor has the case been decided issuewise, as per the prescribed norms and procedure of law, which is badly lacking in the instant case and therefore, such a haphazard decision of the case cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be categorised as a proper trial. The learned Additional Commissioner, too, has failed to consider this material aspect of the matter in question and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, am without commenting upon the merits of the case, fully convinced that this is rather a fit case for remand to the learned trial Court for decision, afresh, on merits, according to law, after properly framing issues and affording due and reasonable opportunity of being heard as well as adducing evidence, if any, to the parties, concerned, in the light of the observations made hereinabove.