D.S. Tewatia, J. - (1.) Civil Revision No. 1844 of 1976 is directed against the order dated 21.9.1976 while Civil Revision No 407 of 1977 is directed against the order dated 5 -9 -1975 of the Additional District Judge, Ropar. Both the revision petitions are inter -connected and raise a common question of law and fact and therefore, a common order is proposed for them.
(2.) The Additional District Judge dismissed the application of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 5 9 -1975 whereby the reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was dismissed in default of prosecution.
(3.) The ground urged by the petitioner in the application for the restoration of the reference was that the petitioner is serving in the army and was posted in Kashmir and since the nature of his service did not permit him to personally prosecute the reference application, he appointed his brother as his attorney who also being a teacher and a government employee, it appears, could not fully look after his interest with the result that on the date in question i.e. 5 -9 -1975 his reference application was dismissed in default as the counsel engaged although was present in court, stated that he had no instructions.;