JAIN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners/appellants have preferred this special appeal against order of Single Bench dated 30th March, 2012, whereby their S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15294/2010 preferred against the order of Revenue Board, has been dismissed. A revision petition filed by petitioners before Revenue Board was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 8th April, 2010. However, the revision petition was restored to its original number vide order dated 22nd April, 2010 subject to payment of cost of Rs.100/- and on the condition that within two days, the steps be taken for bringing the legal representatives of respondents Nos. 14, 48 and 49 on record. When the matter was listed before Revenue Board, it came to its notice that counsel for the petitioners had not filed a receipt of payment of amount of cost. However, Revenue Board directed that in case, petitioners pay/deposit a sum of Rs.1000/- in the course of day, then revision petition be deemed to have been restored, but on failing of the same, the revision petition would stand dismissed. Since the order was not complied with, therefore, revision petition stood dismissed. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an application for recalling of the order, but the same was dismissed on 6th March, 2010. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioners preferred a writ petition before Single Bench, which has been dismissed vide order dated 30th March, 2012, which is under challenge in this intra-court appeal. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that revision has been dismissed because of pre-emptory order and it has not been decided on merits by Revenue Board, therefore, an opportunity be granted to petitioners, on payment of heavy cost, to argue the revision petition on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, agreed that petitioners will now pay a cost of Rs.10,000/- within a period of 15 days. He also agreed that a direction be given to Revenue Board to decide the revision petition at the earliest.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that petitioners are deliberately delaying the matter before Revenue Board. He further submitted that an another revision petition in the same matter has again been filed, which is also pending. It shows that for one reason or the other, the petitioners are delaying the matter. Therefore, no interference in the order of Single Bench be made. He further submitted that the matter arises out of a suit, which was filed in the year 1980. He also submitted that in case this Court grants an indulgence to petitioners then the another/connected revision petition may also be directed to be decided along with revision in question. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. So far as facts of the case are concerned, there is no dispute that revision petition filed by petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution and the same was restored on payment of cost. The amount of cost was not paid. Therefore, revision petition was dismissed. An application for recalling of the order was filed by petitioners, but the same was also dismissed. There is no dispute that revision has not been dismissed on merits, but because of non-compliance of the order passed by Revenue Board. Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no illegality in the order of Revenue Board as well as Single Bench, but in our view ends of justice will meet, in case one more opportunity is granted to the petitioners on payment of heavy cost. ;