K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) -
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioners allegedly took loan from opposite party no. 3 Shiv Shankar Tiwari on 5-7-1971, but according to the plaintiff-opposite party the petitioners did not pay up the loan hence the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 476/- was filed before Nyaya Panchayat, Sonvarsa, Pargana Doaba, district Ballia. Copy of the plaint is Annexure ' 1 ' attached with the writ petition. The claim of the plaintiff-opposite party no. 3 in the present writ petition was contested by the defendants-petitioners with the allegations that the suit was filed with false allegations and that the petitioners had executed a pronote in favour of the plaintiff's father and no loan was taken from the plaintiff with a view to exercise undue pressure upon the petitioners and to harass the petitioners the suit was filed against them (see Annexure ' 2 ' attached with the writ petition). The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit as is evident from Annexure '3' attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial court i. e. Nyaya Panchyat, Sonvarsa, district Ballia the defendants-petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Munsif, Ballia (East). The revision petition bears No. 10/73 Smt. Rajo Devi v. Shiv Shankar Tiwari. The aforesaid revision petition was dismissed in default on 10-4-1976. Thereafter an application for restoration of the revision petition was moved. Since there was some mistakes in the memo of revision petition an application for amendment was moved. The learned Munsif on 27-8-1977 dismissed the amendment application as well as the application for restoration of the revision petition as is evident from the judgment dated 27-8-1977 contained in Annexure ' 9 ' attached with the writ petition. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Munsif the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended before us that the learned Munsif patently erred in dismissing the restoration of the revision petition on the ground that there was no provision for restoring the revision petition dismissed for default under the Panchayat Raj Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners there was no provision under the Panchayat Raj Act for dismissing the revision petition for default and when the learned Munsif dismissed the revision petition for default he patently erred in not restoring the revision petition on the ground that there was no provision for restoration of the revision petition.
(3.) NO one appears on behalf of the contesting opposite party. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and we have examined the impugned judgments. The learned Munsif has expressed himself as below :- ".........Since there is no provision for restoration of revision in Panchayat Raj Act and section 83 P. R. Act bars the application of C.P.C. hence this application for restoration of revision is misconceived and it is dismissed in limine ". ;