S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned Counsel, holding the brief of Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 Babu son of Bachchu Ram. Learned Counsel for other respondents are not present.
(2.) Against an order passed by the settlement officer Consolidation dated 25.2.1984 two revisions were filed, being Revision No. 190 Vishwa Nath v. Staya Narain and others, and Revision No. 198 Vijai Shanker v. Staya Narain and others. In both the revisions Bachchu Ram, father of respondent No. 4 in this writ petition, was respondent. Both the revisions were dismissed in default by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur on 27.12.1986. The revisionists of the said revisions i.e. Vishwa Nath and Vijay Shanker did not file any restoration application. Four sons of Bachchu Ram, who was respondent in the revisions, filed restoration application on 12.2.1992 stating therein that Bachchu Ram had died and no summonses had been served upon them. The said application was filed by Babu, respondent No. 4 and his three brothers, who are respondents No. 10,11 and 12 in this writ petition.
(3.) When the revision filed against the father of the applicants in restoration application had been dismissed, there was no sense in filing restoration application by them. If the revisions had been allowed, then they could file application for rehearing. Unfortunately both the revisions were restored by order dated 3.10.1992 and order dismissing the revisions in default dated 27.12.1986 was recalled. The said order dated 3.10.1992 is patently erroneous in law as revisions could not be restored unless application was filed by the revisionists. On 3.10.1992 itself Babu, one of the applicants and one of the sons of Bachchu Ram and applicant in restoration application dated 12.2.1992, filed fresh revision against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25.2.1984 being Revision No. 24 of 1992. True copy of the grounds of revision filed by Babu, is An-nexure 11. There is no order of condoning the delay of eight years in filing the said revision.;