PRAHLAD Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri P.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari for the contesting respondent No. 3. The instant writ petition arises out of proceedings for allotment of chaks and seeks quashing of the order dated 1.10.2002 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shahjahanpur whereby a restoration application filed by the respondent No. 3 has been allowed.

(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a revision filed by the respondent No. 3 was fixed for hearing on 8.7.2002. The revision was heard and 15.7.2002 was fixed for delivery of judgment on which date, the judgment was actually delivered and the revision filed by the respondent, was dismissed.

(3.) On 24.7.2002, the respondent No. 3 filed a restoration application alleging that 8.7.2002 was fixed for hearing of the revision. On that same date, two revisions, filed by the sons of the respondent, were also fixed. It is the case of the respondent that all the three revisions were adjourned for 15.7.2002. On this date, namely 15.7.2002, the revisions filed by the sons of the respondent, were adjourned for 22.7.2002. The petitioner kept waiting but his revision was not called out. However, he was informed by the reader that the matter had been adjourned for 22.7.2002. On 22.7.2002, the lawyers were on strike and, therefore, the matters were adjourned for 29.7.2002. The petitioner engaged a new counsel on 23.7.2002 and when the file was searched for, it came to light that the revision had been dismissed on 15.7.2002, and therefore, the recall application.