Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Krishna Nand Yadav, learned Counsel for the Petitioner at length.
(2.) THE challenge is to the order passed by the learned Member of Board of Revenue which is being assailed on the ground that the restoration ought not to have been allowed as the predecessor in interest of the contesting Respondent, Smt. Jiyana, had been heard and the order passed in the year 1988 was not ex -parte. Sri Krishan Nand Yadav submits that in the absence of any such cogent material, the restoration was not maintainable nor it could have been allowed on the basis of the averments contained in the affidavit in support of the restoration application. He therefore submits that the restoration ought to have been rejected and the decree passed by the Court below deserves to be maintained as it was passed after recording findings on the merits of the case.
(3.) SRI Tiwari learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5, who claims herself to be the grand daughter of Smt. Jiyana, submits that Smt. Jiyana died during the proceedings and she had filed the restoration application with the clear allegation that due to her old age and ailment she has been unable to attend court. She had No. adequate knowledge about the date by her lawyer and the restoration was filed within a short span of time after a month of the passing of the decree and therefore there was No. deliberate delay or default on the part of the Smt. Jiyana in moving the restoration application.;