The main legal point established is that a restoration application must be filed within the limitation period, and the applicants must have locus standi to move the application.

S. P. PANDEY, MEMBER., J.

This is a revision petition under Section 333 of the UPZA & LR Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), preferred against the judgment and order, dated 31-8-1995, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, is revision Petition No. 24/149 of 1993, dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order, dated 23-12-1992, passed by the learned trial Court, on an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, read with Section 151 CPC, moved in a suit under Section 161 of the Act.

2. Briefly stated, the facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are that after a suit under Section 161 of the Act for exchange was decreed on 28-5-1988, the applicants, Ram Lal and Mata Badal moved an application under Section 161, read with Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 27-2-1991, alleging that the ex parte decree in question, was got passed in favour of Awadhesh Singh behind their back of which the applicants had no knowledge and praying that the same may be recalled and the suit in question may be restored to its original number and the same be disposed of after impleading them as parties to the same. This application was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The summonses issued and the notice by registered post were not served upon the opposite parties and therefore, the service was effected through publication in Nav Karmyug daily, dated 21-10-1991 and the opposite parties did not appear before the Court despite the same. In the meantime, Kodu Ram etc. filed objections to the effect that the land in dispute has been transferred in his favour by Awadhesh Singh and the application, moved by the applicants highly time barred, illegal and baseless, praying that the application dated 27-2-1991. In question be rejected. The learned trial Court, after completing the requisite formalities, recalled the order, dated 28-5-1988 and restored the suit to is original number, impleading the applicants, Ram Lal and Mata Badal as opposite parties and observing that in case the objector is not prepared to be the plaintiff, the suit in question shall be deemed to be dismissed, vide its order, dated 23-12-1992 against which a revision petition was preferred by Kodu Ram etc. before the learned Additional Commissioner, who has dismissed the same vide his judgment and order, dated 31-8- 1995 and therefore, it is against these orders that the instant revision petition has been preferred by Kodu Ram alias Kodu Prasad before the Board.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, on file. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that since Ram Lal, respondent No. 1, being the marginal witness in both the sale deeds, had full knowledge of the proceedings, in question, right from the very beginning, his restoration application is totally false and fictitious and the view of both the Courts, below to the contrary, is wholly illegal and against the over-whelming evidence on record; that since the revisionist is a necessary and proper party, the learned trial Court erred in deciding his application for impleadment and when he claimed so, the learned trial Court actually erred in deciding the same; that since the farzi entry, made in CH Form 2-A, in favour of the respondent No. 1 was expunged by the Collector, concerned on 27-10-1994, the respondents 1 and 2 have no claim whatsoever over the land, in dispute and the learned Courts, below, have grossly erred in accepting their claim despite the aforesaid fact; that since the view, taken by the learned trial Court, is wholly illegal, as it had to first condone the delay in filing the restoration application and then to proceed with the matter, in question, on merits, the impugned orders are grossly erroneous and perverse in law and that too without taking into account the evidence, both documentary and oral, on record; that since the service of notices upon the resp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document