- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri Jokhan Prasad, learned Advocate in support of this petition and Sri G. C. Yadav, learned Advocate in opposition thereof.
(2.) THIS petition challenges two orders passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation i. e. one dismissing the revision in absence of argument from petitioner's side and other by which restoration application was rejected. From a perusal of the facts and details which will be noticed, there cannot be any dispute to the situation which can be termed as very unfortunate and some what misuse of provisions to which in the present case mainly the Deputy Director, Consolidation can be held to be responsible. By taking a totally unwise stand which can be said to be not prudent for such a senior officer, both sides were subjected to harassment for about 11 years vesting their money, energy and occupying precious time of the Court. This Court do not know whether the Deputy Director, Consolidation is still available in service or not, but certainly he has committed something grossly irregular. But as the matter is quite old, this Court is not proposing to give any direction against the said authority by calling his explanation about exercise of his powers. Although, exercise. was judicial one but that pinches the judicial conscious. Now this Court is not to write any more on the issue. Facts giving rise to the issue are that Revision was filed by the petitioner's side and that was pending. Revision was posted for a particular date. Learned Counsel is said to be present but he said that he has no instruction. Revision was dismissed. On the very next day, application was filed by the petitioner and stand was taken that by mistake that date was noted on which date, he came and filed his application. This was very simple and excusable thing. Recall Application was filed on the next day of dismissal of revision. No earlier lapses or negligence of revisionist was reported. No. counter was there. Thus there could not be any possible objection in giving opportunity to revisionist but what to say to the wisdom of the Deputy Director, Consolidation, he rejected restoration application, upon which, petitioner was compelled to come to this Court and he is to wait for about 11 years for getting revival of the revision for its decision on merits.
(3.) THE aforesaid being the fact, this Court having taken strong exception to both orders of the Deputy Director, Consolidation has to direct for revival of the revision as dispute was of title between the parties and that was required to be decided on merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides, as after close of consolidation, claim of loosing party has to be barred under section 49 of the UPCH Act. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and is allowed. Both orders of the Revisional Court as noted above are hereby quashed. The Revisional Court is directed to revive the revision for its decision on merits, in accordance with law, without allowing unwarranted adjournment to both sides, unless required for very compelling reason. Revisional Court will ensure that revision is decided, preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order by either of the sides. Petitions Allowed. .;