1985 (2) TMI 315 - HC - Indian Laws

Restoration application filed within fifteen days of actual judgment under Section 201 deemed timely despite ex-parte proceedings

The Allahabad HC dismissed a writ petition challenging the timeliness of a restoration application under Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The ... Timeliness of restoration application u/s 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act - order passed to proceed ex-parte - Meaning of the word 'judgment' and 'determine' - HELD THAT:- In the instant case there was no evidence nor even bald allegation in the petition as to on which date the said order was communicated to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as there was no provision in the Act to make an order to proceed ex- parte and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the Act, hence the Consolidation officer has got only alternatives either to dismiss the case in default in case the objector (Plaintiff) is absent on a date fixed or to give a final judgment on the basis of the evidence and there can be third order just to proceed ex-parte for which there was no provision under the Act. Even under Section 203 of U.P. Land Revenue Act in case a party neglects to attend the date specified in the summons or on any date it means that the case must have been postponed. The court may dismiss it in default or may hear and determine ex-parte. The important word is 'to determine ex-parte'. Hence the meaning of the word 'determine' has to be ascertained. It is accordingly clear that unless the case is finally decided, it cannot be said that the Consolidation Officer has determined the case or the controversy involved therein. It is thus clear that the Consolidation Officer has passed the judgment only on 25-9-79 and from that date within fifteen days restoration application was filed. Hence it was well within time. I am of the view that there are no merits in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. No other point has been pressed before me. For the discussions made above the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. Issues:1. Timeliness of restoration application under Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.2. Interpretation of the term 'judgment' under Section 201.3. Application of statutory provisions of Sections 200 and 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act.4. Determination of the case ex-parte and its implications.5. Sufficiency of cause for allowing restoration application.6. Judicial interpretation of the term 'determine' under Section 203 of U.P. Land Revenue Act.Detailed Analysis:1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the timeliness of the restoration application filed under Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. The Petitioner argued that the application was time-barred as the order to proceed ex-parte was passed on 13th September, 1979, and the restoration application was filed on 6th October, 1979. The Respondents contended that the application was within time as per the statutory provisions.2. The interpretation of the term 'judgment' under Section 201 was crucial in determining the validity of the restoration application. The court examined various definitions of 'judgment' from legal dictionaries to establish that a mere order to proceed ex-parte does not constitute a final judgment. Therefore, the timeline for filing the restoration application needed to be calculated from the date of the final judgment, which was 25th September, 1979.3. The court delved into the statutory provisions of Sections 200 and 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to understand the procedural aspects of ex-parte orders and restoration applications. It was highlighted that the Act did not provide for the specific procedure of passing an order to proceed ex-parte, unlike the Code of Civil Procedure. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Act's provisions in such matters.4. The determination of the case ex-parte and its legal implications were thoroughly analyzed. The court clarified that unless a case is finally decided, it cannot be deemed as determined. Therefore, the Consolidation Officer's judgment on 25th September, 1979, marked the actual determination of the case, allowing the restoration application filed within fifteen days to be considered timely.5. The sufficiency of cause for allowing the restoration application was a contentious issue. While the Petitioner contested the grounds for restoration, arguing insufficient cause, the Consolidation Officer and Deputy Director of Consolidation upheld the decision based on their assessment of the facts. The court reiterated that the determination of sufficient cause is a factual finding and cannot be overturned under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.6. Lastly, the court examined the term 'determine' under Section 203 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act to clarify the process of determining a case ex-parte. Various legal dictionaries were referenced to establish that a case must be finally decided for it to be considered determined. This interpretation further supported the timeliness of the restoration application in this case.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the restoration application was filed within the statutory timeline and that the decision to allow it based on sufficient cause was a factual determination. The case was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for expeditious consideration on its merits.