- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order of Addl. Settlement Commissioner, Jaipur dated 13-5-68 whereby the appeal of the appellants against the order of Settlement Officer, Tonk dated 9-10-67 was rejected.
(2.) IN view of the order we are going to pass in this appeal, the facts of the case need not be narrated. The Assistant Settlement Officer dismissed in default the case of the appellants as neither the appellants nor their Mukhtiar was present on the date of hearing fixed by the A. S. O. The appeals filed before the Settlement Commissioner Jaipur met with no success. Hence this appeal. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Sec. 63 of the} Rajasthan Land Revenue Act which is applicable to the present proceedings lays down that if a party does not appear on the date fixed for hearing or on any subsequent date or dates to which the hearing might be postponed, the proceeding might be heard and determined in his absence or might be dismissed in default. Sec. 65 thereof bars an appeal against an order passed under Sec. 63 if it has not been made on merits. In other words, where a suit is dismissed in default, no appeal can be preferred. Vide sub-section (2) the only remedy open to such a party is to apply for restoration within 30 days from the date of that order to set it aside on the ground that he was prevented by any sufficient case from appearing at the hearing. The learned counsel for the appellants could not argue why the appellants failed to file a restoration application within the period of limitation. He alto could not show us any other provision of law whereby an appeal could be entertained against an order passed under sec. 63. The provisions of sec. 63 & 65 are every clear. No appeal therefore lay before the Addl. Settlement Commissioner or the Settlment Officer against such an order. The learned Addl. Commissioner was, therefore, perfectly justified in rejecting the appeal of the appellants. We see no force in this appeal and hereby reject the same. .;