S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 5 Rammal who has appeared through caveat.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that interest of respondent 6 to 19 is similar to the interest of petitioner hence there is no need to issue notice to them. Learned Counsel for both the parties have agreed to disposal of the writ petition without calling for counter ami rejoinder affidavit.
(3.) This writ petition is directed against order dated 14.6.2004 passed by D.D.C., Ballia in restoration, application No. 613. Earlier Revision No. 202 was allowed on 14.7.1999. In the said revision initially petitioner was not impleaded later on application for his impleadment was filed and allowed. The case of the petitioner is that notice was not issued to him hence he was not aware of the revision or the date fixed therein. It is strange that respondent No. 5 raised objection before the revisional Court that Restoration was belated while his own revision was filed after about 6 or 8 years. In the impugned order there is no clear finding that either before or after impleadment of the petitioner any notice was issued to him. The only thing stated in the order is that "they were provided sufficient opportunity of hearing". It has not been mentioned as to when notice was issued and how' it was served.;