UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. PRAHLAD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition under Section 275 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, preferred against the judgment and order dated 11-4-1997, passed by the learned Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi in appeal No. 1/4/96-97, arising out of the order, dated 15-9-1993 and 17-2-1997, passed by the learned Court of first instance in a suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that after the suit under Section 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act has been decreed by the learned trial Court on 15-9- 1993, and an application, dated 28-4-1994 for execution of the same was pending, the defendant, Central Railway moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 23-11-1996, inter alia on the ground of the decree, dated 15-9-1993, being ex-parte and as its pairokar had since retired, the applicant had no knowledge of the suit. The plaintiff, Prahlad Kumar contested the same, denying the allegations and inter alia, pleading that since the same to time barred and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for the condonation of delay, the same deserves to be rejected. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, rejected this application, dated 23-11-1996, fixing 26-2-1997 in the execution case, vide its order dated 17-2-1997. Thereafter, the Central Railway went up in appeal before the learned Commissioner on 26-2-1993, who has admitted the same and transferred it to the Court of the Additional Commissioner for disposal of the same, on merits and rejecting the stay application, fixed 13-5-1997, vide his order dated 11-4- 1997 and therefore, it is against this order that the instant revision petition has been preferred by the Union of India etc. before the Board.

(3.) I have closely and carefully considered the arguments, advanced before me by the learned Counsel for the parties and have also scanned the record on file. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the appeal, in question is still pending before the Court of first appeal and had the revisionist any grievance by the impugned order, he may very well raise it before it. The learned Commissioner has clearly observed that as per the evidence, adduced by the plaintiff, possession has already been delivered on 27-3-97 and with these observations, he rejected the prayer for stay, exercising his judicial discretion in a legal and logical manner and therefore, I, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case as well as the evidence on record, am fully convinced that no error of law, fact or jurisdiction has been committed by the learned Court, below, in rejecting the stay application, with which no interference is called for, by this Court and as such, this revision petition, having no force, very richly deserves dismissal, outright.