- (1.) IN the writ application, orders passed by the Additional Collector and Board of Revenue were questioned in which it was found that on 1.4.1966, son of the holder was major. Finding was recorded in this regard by the Additional Collector in para 7 of the order; same was affirmed by the Board of Revenue and the Single Bench, against which the intra-court appeal had been preferred.
(2.) THE case was listed before this Court for removal of the defects on 22.9.1998. In presence of the counsel, it was ordered that defects be removed within a period of one week as prayed, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the Bench. As order was not complied with, appeal stood dismissed way back in the year 2008 itself. Thus, application for restoration has been filed with an inordinate delay of 936 days along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The reason given for the delay is change of counsel in 2009; that could not be a ground not to comply with the order passed by this Court in presence of the counsel. Even otherwise, purely, finding of fact was questioned in the writ application. As the concurrent findings of fact were recorded by the revenue courts, it was not open for the petitioner to question the same. The Single Bench was right in dismissing the writ application in the facts and circumstances of the case. We are not inclined to restore the appeal to its number as no useful purpose would be served. The restoration application is accordingly dismissed.;