- (1.) THIS restoration application has been filed against the order of the Board dated 29-11-88 by which the appeal was dismissed in default under Order XLI, Rule 18 C. P. C.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that due to long illness and death of his previous Counsel the restoration application against the order dated 29-11-88 has been filed on 21-11- 2002. An affidavit has been filed by the applicant in which it has been mentioned that absence of the deponent and his Counsel on 29-11-88 and the delay in filing the restoration application is not wilful or due to any latches on the part of the deponent but it is only due to the death of the learned Counsel, continued illness of the deponent and lack of any knowledge or information about the date fixed and the order of dismissal as such the same is liable to be condoned. It was also mentioned in the affidavit that the deponent fell seriously ill since 1986 and he has been running for continuous treatment in the civil hospital and his previous Counsel died long before, in the year 1985. Certain medical slips has been filed in which slip of District Hospital Sultanpur dated 21-9-2001 which is just one week before the filing of the restoration application. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party in which allegations which were raised in the affidavit has been denied. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that on 20-7-96 notification under Section 4 (2) of the U. P. C. H. Act was made and appellant filed an objection after long time on 24-8-2001 before the consolidation operation with respect to the disputed property and mainly it has been stated by the opposite party that the matter is being contested by the applicant in the Consolidation Courts and deliberately highly time barred restoration application has been filed by Bhutun.
(3.) THE present appeal has been filed before the Board of Revenue by Bhutun, Dasrath, Rama Shanker, Phagu Lal. Sri Bhutun has filed a medical slip of November 2001 and it has been alleged in the affidavit that he is suffering from long illness since 1987 and he is running under continuous treatment in Civil Hospital sultanpur. If he was going to Hospital in Sultanpur since 1987 he should have filed the documentary prove that he is under the treatment of the above hospital since 1987 but he has not filed any single slip. THErefore this contention of the applicant that he was continuously ill since 1987 is not proved by the documentary evidence. Secondly, before the Board of Revenue there were four appellants and if Bhutun was ill there were three other appellants who could have tried to know the position of their case which was pending since 1985 and which was dismissed on 29-11-88 in non compliance of the Court's order. THE other contention of the applicant is that previous Counsel Sri B. D. Pandey died long before in 1985 is also not correct because Sri B. D. Pandey was present in the Court on 18-12-85 and on that date the case was admitted for hearing and Court has directed to file notices but the orders of the Court were not complied. THE village is now under consolidation operation and the matter is being contested between the parties before the consolidation authorities. THErefore this restoration application is highly time barred and has no merit. In view of the above, the restoration application has no substance and is dismissed accordingly. Restoration dismissed. .;