Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrendra Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for contesting respondent No. 5.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purposes of the case are that revision filed by the petitioner against the appellate order dated 28.9.1993 was dismissed in default on 30.7.2001. An application to recall the order was moved on the same date on the ground that the petitioner could not reach in time on account of heavy rains. The restoration application was also dismissed in default on 3.6.2004. Again restoration application was moved on the same date. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 17.5.2006 has dismissed the restoration application on the ground that the revisionist/petitioner was unnecessary delaying disposal of the case and had no interest in disposal of the restoration application and as such the restoration application was not liable to be allowed.
(3.) It is no doubt correct that revision filed by the petitioner in 1994 has remained pending for about 12 years. The revision was dismissed in default on 30.7.2001 and restoration application was filed on the same date. Unfortunately, the said restoration applications also dismissed in default Again an application to recall the said order was moved on the same date. The fact that restoration application was filed on the same date itself goes to show that the petitioner was vigilant in prosecuting the case. , The finding recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the petitioner has been deliberately delaying in disposal of the case appears to be without any basis. There is no reference of any material which may go to indicate the deliberate intention of the petitioner in delaying the disposal. Even in the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the contesting respondent, no such material has been brought on record. Merely because revision was dismissed in default once and unfortunately the restoration application was so dismissed in default cannot lead to the conclusion that petitioner was deliberately adopting dilatory tactics.;