K.P.SINGH, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgments of the consolidation authorities namely Annexures '5', '2' and '1' attached with the writ petition.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties to the writ petition is regarding shares. The Consolidation Officer decided the dispute through his judgment dated 22nd June, 1969 (Annexure T attached with the writ petition). Against the judgment of the Consolidation Officer several appeals were preferred which were decidedly the appellate authority through its judgment dated 15-11-1969 (Annexure '2' attached with the writ petition). The appeals of the petitioners were partly allowed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate authority the contesting parties preferred revision petitions which have been decided through the impugned judgment dated 16-12-1970. The revision petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed and the revision petition filed by the constesting opposite parties Sheo Murat and others was allowed (see Annexure '5' attached with the writ petition). It appears that the petitioners had preferred a review petition against the judgment dated 16-12-1970 through Annexure'6' attached with the writ petition. The aforesaid review petition was dismissed through Annexure '7' attached with the writ petition on the ground that there is no provision of review under the U. P. C. H. Act. On the date of the dismissal of the review petition it appears that the petitioners filed a restoration application as is evident from Annexure '6' attached with the writ petition. The restoration application has been dismissed through the order dated 6-12-1971 (see Annexure '9' attached with the writ petition). Thereafter the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition was presented on 16-2-1972 and has been admitted on 30th March, 1972.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that the counsel of the petitioners was ill, hence the petitioners wanted that their cases might not be taken up for hearing on 15-12-1970, and an application for adjournment was moved on 12-12-1970., and that application was rejected on 15-12-1970. Another application for adjournment was moved seeking one day adjournment to get another counsel ready with their cases but that prayer was also refused, and the cases were heard on that very day and the judgment delivered next day. It has also been brought to my notice that the courts were closed on 15-12-1970 due to death of a counsel in the district, yet the revisional Court did not accommodate the petitioners and heard their cases in an arbitrary fashion, hence the impugned judgment should be quashed.;