Court No. - 9
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 5642 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pauhari Lal Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sheo Ram Singh,Juned Alam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abbas Khan,Tariq Maqbool Khan
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The writ petition arises out of a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, filed by the petitioner.
The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The contesting respondent filed a belated appeal, which is stated to have been dismissed, for default.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against this order, dismissing the appeal for default a restoration was filed, which was also dismissed. The respondents, thereafter filed a review, which was rejected, holding that the appellant opposite party had not been able to satisfy the Court as to the reasons for having filed the appeal belatedly.
Aggrieved by the order, a revision was filed before the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the appellate Court to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties.
Assailing the impugned order of the Board of Revenue, heavy reliance has been placed by Counsel for the petitioners upon observations made by the Additional Commissioner, while rejecting the review application. This Court finds that the Additional Commissioner while deciding the review application has mis-directed himself.
While considering the review/ restoration application, the only point to be considered by the appellate Court was whether, there was any cogent explanation for the appellants absence on the date fixed.
The observation that the appellant has not been able to satisfy the Court, on earlier occasions, on the question of delay was not an issue open for consideration at that point of time. This observation therefore, cannot be said to be justified and was mere conjecture.
Even otherwise, the proceedings wherefrom the writ petition arises are regular title proceedings and there appears no justification as to why the statutory right of an appeal should be curtailed by the writ Court. The Board of Revenue has rightly remanded the matter back for a decision of the appeal on its merits and I do not find any justification to interfere therein.
The writ petition is therefore, not liable to be entertained and is hereby dismissed.
It is however, observed that the appellate Court consequent to the order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue should endeavour to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.
Order Date :- 27.11.2018 RKM