Raj Mani Revisionist v. Jagar Nath Opp. Party.

Babu Ram, Member:— This is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi by his order dated 20.12.1996 passed in revision petition No. 128 of 1996.Bhadohi recommending that the revision be allowed, the order of the trial court dated 31.7.1995 be set aside and the case be remanded to it for fresh decision.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Rajmani and others had been given benefit of Section 122-B (4F) of the UPZA & LR Act by the order dated 7.12.1986 Jagar Nath and others moved an application for recall of the order. On 20.3.1995, Rajmani and others filed objection stating that the application moved by Jagar Nath on 3.1.1995 was beyond time and was not maintainable.

3. On 31.7.1995, the trial court allowed the application of Jagar Nath and others. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Rajmani and others filed a revision petition before the learned Additional Commissioner from which the present reference has arisen.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have also perused the record of the case. Nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party despite due notice and repeated calls.

5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has supported the reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner. A perusal of the record shows that the order passed by the trial court is illegal as it has failed to take into account the points whether the application for recall of the earlier order was beyond time or not and whether it was maintainable. The learned Additional Commissioner has considered the matter at length and found that the matter-should be decided afresh after considering the points whether the application was maintainable and whether it may be treated to be within time or not. After perusing the record of the case carefully, I agree with the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner.

6. In view of the above, I accept the reference, allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the trial court dated 31.7.1995 and remand the case to it for decision afresh according to law in the light of the observations made above.

7. Revision Allowed.