SHANTA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE CHANDAULI AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. In spite of sufficient service as per office report dated 15. 10. 2004 no one has appeared on behalf of contesting respondents No. 2 to 5.

(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED District Judge, held that petitioner did not file any evidence to prove the said assertion /averments made in the affidavit. In restoration matters affidavit is sufficient evidence. Appellate Court further held that other three brothers of petitioner No. 1 were also appellant, hence, they could also do pairvi. In this regard case of the petitioner No. 1 was that only he was doing pairvi in the appeal.