S.C. Chaurasia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri R.K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 4, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article of Constitution has been filed with the prayer that a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari may be issued quashing the impugned order dated 14 -06 -2010 passed by the opposite party No. 2 in revision No. 82/2009 -2010, Uma Shanker and Ors. v. Ashok Kumar and Ors. and the order dated 29 -03 -2010 passed by opposite party No. 3 and the order dated 09 -05 -2005 passed by Sub. Divisional Officer, Patti, district -Pratapgarh in suit No. 154/80, contained as Annexure Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioners and the suit was decreed ex -parte, although, a general date was fixed due to strike of lawyers. He has further submitted that an application for restoration moved on behalf of petitioners was rejected by the courts below illegally and hence, the application for restoration may be remanded with a direction that it may be disposed of afresh in accordance with law.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for opposite party No. 4 has submitted that the suit for partition was decreed ex -parte and the preliminary decree dated 09 -05 -2005 was passed after service of notices on the petitioners. He has further submitted that an application moved on behalf of petitioners for setting aside order dated 09 -05 -2005 was time -barred and it was not maintainable, as no application under Section of the Limitation Act was moved for condonation of delay. He has further submitted that the petitioners and the opposite party No. 4 are real brothers and their shares have not been disputed and hence, no useful purpose would be served by remanding the restoration application for disposal afresh.;