Ram Saran v. B. P. S. — 1991 DIGILAW 682 (ALL)

JUDGMENT D.D. Verma, Member - This is an application for recalling of the Board's order dated 29.9.88 dismissing the Reference No. 94 of 80-81/Allahabad in default of the revisionist. 2. The brief facts of the case are that proceedings for cancellation of lease executed in favour of the O.Ps. were started on the application of the revisionist Ram Saran. The trial court vide its order dated 29.4.78 rejected the application of the revisionist. Aggrieved by the said order the revisionist Ram Saran and others filed a revision before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division. The learned Addl. Commissioner vide his recommending order dated 22.12.1979 has recommended to this Court to set aside the order of the trial court and to direct the trial court to re-construct the file and allow the parties to lead evidence and then decide the case afresh according to law. Accordingly a Reference No. 94 of 80-81/Allahabad was registered in this office and notices were issued to the parties vide Board's order dated 16.2.1983. The case was listed for hearing on 28.6.1984 and was dismissed in default of the applicant. A restoration application dated 26.7.84 was filed and was allowed by this Court's order dated 9.12.87 and the case was ordered to be listed for final hearing in May 1988 session. Accordingly the case was listed for hearing on 29.9.88 and on that it was again dismissed in default of the applicant, and the case was consigned to record room. On 12.10.1988 a restoration application supported with an affidavit had been moved on behalf of the revisionist. On 11.1.1989 notices were issued to the O.P. for 18.8.89 since 1989 the case has been fixed on several dates and ultimately has come up for hearing today. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the papers available on the file. Today the counsel for the opposite party had opposed the application for restoration on the ground that it is a quite old case and it is purposely being delayed to defect the ends of justice. 4. I have gone through the restoration application and the full history of the case. I feel that it would meet the ends of justice if restoration application is allowed and the case is heard finally on merits today itself. Accordingly both the counsels who were present in the case were asked to give their arguments. 5. 4. I have gone through the restoration application and the full history of the case. I feel that it would meet the ends of justice if restoration application is allowed and the case is heard finally on merits today itself. Accordingly both the counsels who were present in the case were asked to give their arguments. 5. I have perused the order of the lower revisional court. The order of the trial court is not available on the file. However, an uncertified copy of the trial court's order was shown to me by the learned counsel lower revisional court's order it is clear that a decision could be taken on the reference even in absence of the lower Court's records. The learned Additional Commissioner, in his reference to this Court, has merely stated that the file of the trial court, which is said to have been destroyed in a fire should be reconstructed by the trial court end the case be decided afresh. I find no patent mistake in this reference made by the learned Addl. Commissioner. I, therefore, accept the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, and order the trial court to reconstruct the file and allow an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, and then decide the case afresh according to law. The parties may appear before the trial court on 27.8.1991.