BUDHI RAM,SANTA Vs. BALAK RAM,SITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed a Revision petition before this Court on 10 -12 -1987 under section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Restitution of Mortgaged Act, 1976 against the order of the learned Commissioner dated 17 -8 -1987 in appeal No 23/80, requesting this Court to set aside the order of the learned Commissioner.

(2.) The case was adjourned for hearing from time to time. Eventually on 13 -1 -1989, this Court ordered as under: - "Petitioners son Sh. Radha Krishan has requested for an adjournment because petitioners counsel is unable to attend the Court today. Earlier on 27 -5 -1988, the counsel also has sought for an adjournment on the ground that he was not having brief of the case with him and my learned predecessor allowed this request. Again on 4 -11 -1988, petitioner has requested for another adjournment. Today neither the petitioner is present nor his counsel. His son, who is present, is not having power of attorney. Therefore, the case is dismissed in default."

(3.) In other words, the case was dismissed even before admission. Subsequently, the petitioner, through the instant petition, has requested this Court for restoration of the case. He has stated that on the last date of hearing i. e. on 13 -1 -1989, his counsel was busy in connection with a criminal case hearing in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Theog due to which the learned Counsel could not appear before this Court. The petitioner has further stated that he is an old man of 75 years age and lives at a distance from motorable road. So, it was not possible for him to appear before this Court.