JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Since these two writ petitions raise common question of fact and law, therefore, are being heard together and disposed of by common judgment.
2. This writ petition challenges the order dated 26.4.1999, passed by the respondent No. 1 in revision filed by the petitioner. The petitioner further prayed for quashing of the orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Mirzapur. It so happened that the respondent No. 3, Mandavi Prasad Singh filed Suit No. 466 of 1987 on 10.12,1987 against the petitioner for the relief that charge be directed to be declared over the land in dispute for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,429 as principal sum along with interest up to the date of the suit pendente lite in case the defendant does not pay the amount within the definite period, the plaintiff can realise the amount from the sale of the property. The suit was filed with the allegation that the registered sale deed was executed by the plaintiff, Mandavi Prasad Singh of his land on 18.10.1977 in favour of Bachanu Ram defendant for a sum of Rs. 8.938. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 3,213 paid by the defendant to the plaintiff and remaining amount of Rs. 5,725 was left by the plaintiff with the defendant to be paid within five months of the registration of the sale-deed along with interest at the rate of 1-1/4% (one and one quarter per cent) per month and thereafter the defendant may start brick kiln over the land in dispute but the defendant did not pay the amount after five months, therefore, according to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the decree by way of a suit. Till the date of the suit, a sum of Rs. 5,725 was due towards the principal and sum of Rs. 8,704 became due towards the interest till the date of filing of the suit. Thus, the total amount for which the suit was filed was Rs. 14,429 and the same may be recovered from the land in dispute. The aforesaid suit was filed after serving a registered notice but inspite of the service of notice, money was not paid by the defendant.
3. That the service of the notices were effected over the defendants but they failed to appear inspite of service, hence suit proceeded ex parte and was decreed ex parte by the ex parte decree dated 3.3.1989 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 14,429 as principal and interest up to the date of the suit and for future was a charge created on the property. Against the dismissal of the suit ex parte, restoration application supported by an affidavit was filed on 25.7.1990 for setting aside the ex parte order dated 3.3.1989. The trial court considered the case of both the parties and dismissed the applications for setting aside the ex parte decree by its order dated 15.5.1995. After the dismissal of the restoration application, the final decree was prepared on 28.7.1995. Petitioner filed second restoration application on 19.3.1996 with the prayer for setting aside the order of dismissal for default of his application of restoration dated 15.5.1995. The plaintiff filed the obj ection. The trial court after considering the explanation submitted by the defendant-applicant for his absence, have recorded a finding of fact that the defendants were not interested in getting the suit decided and they were interested in lingering on the suit and the second application was also rejected vide order dated 22.4.1998. Against the order dated 27.7.1988, a revision has been filed before the respondent No. 1 by the Judgment later and the same has also been rejected by the revisional court that the only explanation given for absence on the date when the suit was decreed ex parte was that there were four similar suits filed against the four defendants including the present petitioner and one Shri Shyam Narain who was more literate amongst the defendants was doing pairvi of the present petitioner and other defendants and as he was confined to bed in Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, Varanasi, from 8.5.1995 to 12.3.1996, no restoration could be filed and the same was dismissed in default. It is also submitted that the restoration application was also dismissed in default on the same date, i.e., 18.5.1996 and against the order dated 18.5.1996 a restoration application was moved by the petitioners in his own case and by three other defendants including Shyam Narain. It is this restoration application which has been rejected. The trial court after considering the affidavits filed in support of the restoration application and the objections filed by the plaintiff have recorded a finding that the defendants were careless in pursuing their case and even assuming that Shyam Narain was ill as stated by the petitioner, there was no explanation come forward as to why the petitioner himself not came forward for pairvi in absence of Shyam Narain.
4. In view of above, the trial court rejected the second restoration application. Against the order of rejection of second restoration application, the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned District Judge who dismissed the same. Before the revisional court, the petitioner has taken stand that on the same explanation second restoration application of Shyam Narain has been allowed but the restoration of the petitioner has been rejected.
5. Thus, the order passed by the courts below suffers from manifest error of law and the petitioner has prayed for the writ of certiorari before this Court, The revisional court has given cogent reasons for not accepting the case of the petitioner with which 1 am in full agreement.
6. Both the courts below have recorded finding of fact regarding the explanation submitted by the petitioner and have arrived at the conclusion that the delay has not been explained satisfactorily and no sufficient explanation has been furnished by the defendant-applicant. Thus, both the courts below have rejected the application for restoration. This Court will not sit in appeal over the findings arrived at by the courts below and no other point could be pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner.
7. In this view of the matter, I find no error in the order passed by the two courts below.
8. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to cost.