Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party No1 and Mr. Mohan Singh learned counsel for opposite party No.3. In view of order being passed, notices to opposite party No.2 stands dispensed with.
Petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that his Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to direct the Deputy Director of Consolidation Barabanki to decide the restoration application dated 20.12.2019 which is pending since 2019 in computerized Revision/ case No. 2018530412000051 (Mohd. Kaleem versus Imtiyaz Ali and another U/S 48 of C.H. Act, and also decide the revision bearing computerized Revision/case No. 2018530412000051 (Mohd. Kaleem versus Imtiyaz Ali and another U/S 48 of C.H. Act which is pending since 2018 as expeditious as possible or within a period as stipulated by this Hon'ble court. "
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that against order dated 22nd November, 2016 the petitioner has filed revision under section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act which has been registered as Revision/case No. 2018530412000051 (Mohd. Kaleem versus Imtiyaz Ali and another). It is submitted that when the said revision was listed on 20th December, 2019, due to extenuating circumstances, neither the revisionist nor his counsel could appear before the court. As such the revision was dismissed for want of prosecution. Restoration application was also filed immediately, which is pending consideration of the court concerned.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that thereafter application has been listed a number of times but the same is yet pending consideration although the opposite parties have already put in appearance.
Upon the perusal of the order sheet, it is apparent that the application is pending for past more than two years now although it is only an application seeking restoration of the revision which has been dismissed in default of appearance. The order sheet also reveals that it is on account of the concerned lawyers boycotting the courts that the matter is pending for quite some time. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall make all endeavour in the early decision of the application.
Considering the innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner, the opposite party No.1 i.e. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki is directed to decide restoration application pending in Revision/case No. 2018530412000051 (Mohd. Kaleem versus Imtiyaz Ali and another) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is brought on record. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted and in case the counsel for revisionist/applicant seeks more than two adjournments prior to decision on the restoration application, the benefit of this order shall not be available to the petitioner.
Withe the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 16.8.2021 prabhat