U.K. Dhaon, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Shyam Mohan appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 3.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 7.10.1991 and the order dated 21.12.1992. The brief facts of the case are that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Consolidation Officer was dismissed in default on 3.4.1991 and on 4.4.1991 an application for restoration was moved which was allowed by the appellate court and the appeal was restored by the order dated 8.5.1991. On the objection preferred by opposite party No. 3, the Settlement Officer. Consolidation by the order dated 27.7.1991, recalled the order dated 8.5.1991 and rejected the application for restoration on the ground that there was no signature either of the counsel or of the appellant. Thereafter, another application was moved for restoration on 27.7.1991 which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the order dated 7.10.1991. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by opposite party No. 1 by the order dated 21.12.1992. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for restoration was rejected on 27.7.1991. on the ground that it was neither signed by the counsel nor by the appellant and as such the subsequent application for restoration which was moved on the same day, i.e.. 27.7.1991 ought to have been allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 3 submits that there is no illegality in the Impugned order.;