- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Satish Chandra Kashish, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
(2.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda whereby the application moved by the petitioner seeking restoration of the revision petition and recall of the order dated 22.11.2016 has been rejected.
(3.) The reason indicated in the impugned order dated 15.12.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is that the petitioner was not a party in the revision, as such the restoration application at his instance is not maintainable. Having regard to the facts, as pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court on 04.04.2019 passed the following order:- "Heard. Issue notice to the opposite parties both ways. Steps be taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner within a period of three days. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had moved an application for substitution which was allowed but due to inadvertent error the same was not incorporated in the revisional memo but this aspect has been omitted from consideration by the Revisional Court. Let the original records of the Revision bearing No. 265 including the restoration application bearing No. 423 on which the order dated 15.12.2018 has been passed be produced on the next date by the learned Standing Counsel. List/ put up on 25.04.2019 as fresh".;