It is the case of the petitioners that their names were mutated on the basis of a registered gift deed in their favour executed by the recorded tenure holders.
A time barred restoration belated of more than 29 years was filed by the contesting respondent which was allowed. This order was challenged by means of a revision but ultimately the same was dismissed in default. A restoration application filed on the very next date has been rejected on the ground that it was an attempt to keep the matter lingering. The second finding recorded is that the revision had been filed against an interlocutory order.
It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the restoration application was filed within 48 hours of the order whereby the revision was dismissed in default. Secondly, it is submitted that the order impugned in the revision was not an interlocutory order. By this order restoration application filed by the contesting respondents had been allowed and to that extent it was a final order.
The matter requires consideration.
Issue notice to the respondent nos.3 to 18 by registered post A.D. Steps be taken within 10 days.
List after service upon the respondents.
Until further orders of this Court, the affect and operation of the order dated 3.5.2012 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 25.2.2014 mna