- (1.) RAM Junam Singh, J. This revision has been filed by Kashi RAM against the order dated 25-6-1998 passed by learned Additional Commissioner Garhwal Division but in the memo of revision the date of order is mentioned as 28-6-98.
(2.) THE learned Additional Commis sioner has rejected the restoration ap plication of the revisionist dated 28-2-1997 on the ground that the knowledge of hearing for appeal pending before the learned Additional Commissioner was there because the summons issued from the office were duly served on Kashi Ram which bears the signature of Kashi Ram and the same signature tallies with the signature of the summons which were is sued by the trial Court to Kashi Ram and also the Vakalatnama which has been filed before the learned Additional Commis sioner. Keeping these views in mind, the learned Additional Commissioner dis missed the restoration application dated 28-2-1997. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the date of order which is mentioned in the name of revision is 28-6-1998 whereas the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division is dated 25-6-1998. 1 agree with the arguments ad vanced by the learned Counsel for the op posite-party that the revision has been filed against someother order and the copy which has been annexed with the memo of revision is of a different order. The order in question against which revision has been filed has not been annexed with the memo of revision. I, therefore, find that the revision is not maintainable being filed against a dif ferent order and on the basis of that it is fit to be dismissed. Revision has no force and is dismissed accordingly. Revision dismissed. .;