DUSHASAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri D.K. Mishra for the petitioner. Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha states that the case is related to district Agra, however, by endorsing district as Allahabad in the writ petition, the petitioner has successfully bypassed the caveat filed by him. As the respondents have filed caveat through Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha, heard Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha for the caveator.

(2.) THE writ petition has been filed against the order dated 17.6.2005 passed by the Sub -Divisional Officer rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner and the order dated 12.2.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner dismissing the revisions filed by the petitioner and the other parties against the aforesaid order and the order dated 24.3.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the second revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order.

(3.) BY order dated 25.4.2014 the Counsel for the petitioner was directed to file restoration application filed by Chhote before the Court below along with order -sheet of the Trial Court. In pursuance of the aforesaid order a supplementary affidavit has been filed in which only restoration application has been filed and order -sheet has not been filed. A perusal of the restoration application shows that Chhote had not specifically denied his signature on the kurras prepared by the Lekhpal rather he took shelter that summons were not served upon him, therefore, no question of signing kurras by him was arising. This is not clear denial of the signature on the kurras. Apart from it, the Courts below have found that Chhote was appearing before the Court at the time of passing preliminary decree through an advocate. Chhote in the restoration application had not denied the fact that he had not engaged any advocate in the suit. It is needless to say that the petitioner had not adduced any evidence to prove that his signature on the kurras was forged.