ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri PS Yadav, holding brief of Sri Ajai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri SS Sengar, holding brief of Sri Shailendra Singh appearing for respondent nos. 3 and 4, Sri Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal holding brief of Sri Shivam Yadav, who represents respondent no. 10 and Sri Brij Kumar Yadav who represents the Gaon Sabha.
(2.) THE instant writ petition arises out a suit under section 229 -B of the UP ZA and LR Act. Since this suit was dismissed in default, in the absence of the parties, a time -barred restoration application was filed by the heirs of the plaintiff who had died during the intervening period. This restoration application was allowed. Against the order restoring the suit, the petitioner preferred a revision, being Revision No. 35/10/11 before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by its order dated 20.2.2014 has dismissed the revision, hence this writ petition.
(3.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the trial court restoring the suit is ex parte, being without any information or notice to him, the defendant in the said suit. The second submission raised is that the restoration application was? belated and the same has been allowed without condoning the delay in filing the same. A perusal of the impugned order? shows that these submissions were also made before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, while passing the impugned order, has categorically observed that the order, dismissing the suit in default, had been passed in the absence of the parties. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was not present on the date the order was passed dismissing the suit, and, therefore, in my considered opinion, he was not necessarily required to be noticed before the trial court restored the suit.;