# Gram Panchyat Kabirpur Distt. Chandauli v. Addl. Commissioner

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 943
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 8810 of 2019
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gram-panchyat-kabirpur-distt-chandauli-v-addl-commissioner-47603
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Land Law - U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.--
Section 229 B - Suit for declaration of
Bhumidhari Rights- decreed ex-parte- four
restoration applications filed at a very belated
stage at different stages under Order IX Rule 13
of C.P.C.

B. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C.-
Defendant against whom decree has been
passed ex-parte is entitled to get the same setaside if he could satisfy the court that the
summons were not duly served upon him or
that he was prevented by sufficient cause from
appearing when the suit was called upon for
hearing.

C. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Second Proviso to Rule 13 of Order
IX of C.P.C.- Right to get an ex-parte decree
ceased to be available in a case where the
defendant knew, or but for his willful conduct
would have known of the date of hearing in
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient time to enable him to appear and
answer the plaintiff's claim.

D. Time spent in pursuing the application under
Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. is to be taken as
sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing
the first appeal.

E. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 -Section 96 (2) - Conjoint reading of
Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. & Section 96 (2) of
C.P.C. indicates that the defendant who suffered
ex-parte decree has two remedies, either to file
an application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C.
or, or to file a regular appeal from the original
decree challenging the same on merits.

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

3 All. Gram Panchayat Kabirpur Distt. Chandauli Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Administration)
 Varanasi Div. & Ors.
943
for the petitioners as well as learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr
Uttam Kumar Verma, learned counsel
appearing for the University.

29. As per the interim order, the
petitioners have been drawing revised pay
scale of Rs.1200-2040/- after it was
sanctioned to them in the year 1991. Thus,
for 31 years, the petitioners have been paid
revised pay scale. The University itself has
granted revised pay scale to some of the
Lab Assistants as mentioned above. Even
pay committee has recommended the
identical pay scale to the Lab Assistants in
Government
Departments
and
other
institutions which was Rs.1200-2040/-
(Revised
Rs.4000-6000/-).
The
audit
objection,
which
was
the
basis
for
withdrawing the pay scale of Rs.12002040, was removed and the very ground for
issuing the Government Order vide order
dated 28th April, 1998 got vanished after
removal of the audit objection. It is not in
dispute that the Lab Assistants working in
the other Government Departments were in
the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/- with effect
from 1st January, 1986 and, thereafter
Rs.4000-6000/- in the sixth pay scale. The
petitioners are duly appointed having
requisite qualifications for the post of Lab
Assistant and they have been working for
fairly long time and some of them have
retired and others are on the verge of
retirement. At this stage, it would be unjust
and improper to decline the pay scale of
Rs.1200-2040/- (revised from time to time).

30. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the present writ petition is
allowed. The petitioners in this writ petition
are entitled to pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-
with effect from the date of interim order
i.e. 22nd June, 1998 (revised from time to
time).
----------
(2022)03ILR A943
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ C No. 8810 of 2019

Gram Panchyat Kabirpur Distt. Chandauli
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl.
Commissioner
(Administration)
Varanasi Div. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, Si Bhupendra
Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Singh, Sri Bhupendra
Kuar Tripathi, Sri Sanjeev Singh (Sr. Adv.),
Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh

A. Land Law - U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950.--
Section 229 B - Suit for declaration of
Bhumidhari Rights- decreed ex-parte- four
restoration applications filed at a very belated
stage at different stages under Order IX Rule 13
of C.P.C.

B. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C.-
Defendant against whom decree has been
passed ex-parte is entitled to get the same setaside if he could satisfy the court that the
summons were not duly served upon him or
that he was prevented by sufficient cause from
appearing when the suit was called upon for
hearing.

C. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Second Proviso to Rule 13 of Order
IX of C.P.C.- Right to get an ex-parte decree
ceased to be available in a case where the
defendant knew, or but for his willful conduct
would have known of the date of hearing in
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sufficient time to enable him to appear and
answer the plaintiff's claim.

D. Time spent in pursuing the application under
Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. is to be taken as
sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing
the first appeal.

E. Civil Law - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 -Section 96 (2) - Conjoint reading of
Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. & Section 96 (2) of
C.P.C. indicates that the defendant who suffered
ex-parte decree has two remedies, either to file
an application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C.
or, or to file a regular appeal from the original
decree challenging the same on merits.

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-
1. Bhivchandra Shankarmore Vs Balu Gangaram
More & ors., (2019) 6 SCC 387

2. Lekhi Ram @ Mula & anr. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2002 R.L.T. 668

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

1.

Rejoinder
affidavit
and
supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of
the petitioner is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Bhupendra Kumar
Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner
(Gaon Sabha), Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Dinesh
Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
contesting respondent No. 7, learned
Standing
Counsel
representing
respondents No. 1 and 2 and perused the
record.

3. Learned counsel for the contesting
Respondent No. 7 has refused to file any
reply to the aforesaid supplementary
affidavit and is agreed to argue the matter
on merits.

4. As per the office report dated
26.11.2021, notices were sent to the
respondents No. 3 to 6, however, neither
the acknowledgement due nor undelivered
envelope is received back till date. No one
has put in appearance on their behalf.

5. Learned Senior Counsel states that
respondent No. 7 is the vendee from
respondents No. 3 to 6, who have lost their
interest in the matter and even before the
revisional court they did not appear and the
matter
was
contested
only
by
the
respondent No. 7.

6. In view of the office report dated
26.11.2021 and the statement made by
counsel for the respondent No. 7, service of
notice upon the respondents No. 3 to 6 is
deemed to be sufficient and the court
proceeds ex-parte against them.

7. The present writ petition has been
filed on behalf of Gram Panchayat, Kabirpur
invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India challenging the judgment and
decree dated 8.10.1985 as well as order
dated 5.10.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional
Officer (respondent No. 2) and order dated
14.8.2018
passed
by
Additional
Commissioner (respondent No. 1).

8. Grievance of the petitioner is that a
suit for declaration of Bhumidhari rights
under Section 229B of The UP Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in
brevity, ''UPZA Act') has been decided exparte against the petitioner and the
restoration filed at the behest of the
petitioner,
against
the
said
ex-parte
judgment and decree, has illegally been
rejected by the trial court, which was
affirmed by the revisional court.
3 All. Gram Panchayat Kabirpur Distt. Chandauli Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Administration)
 Varanasi Div. & Ors.
945

9. Facts culled out from the pleadings
of the parties reveals that Habib Ullah
(father of respondent No. 3 to 6) had filed
suit dated 10.1.1983 for declaration under
Section 229B of UPZA Act for declaring
him as a Bhumidhar with transferable right
over plot in question i.e. plot No. 59/4 area
0.77 decimal and plot No. 105/2 area 0.40
decimal. Aforesaid suit was filed against
Gaon Sabha and the State. Service of notice
was properly served upon the parties.
Written statement had been filed by the
State of Uttar Pradesh through District
Government
Counsel
(Revenue)
(in
brevity, ''DGC (R)'). After exchange of
pleadings, aforesaid suit was decreed by
judgment and decree dated 8.10.1985.
Aforesaid judgment was well within the
knowledge of DGC (R), who has jotted the
remark of ''seen' on the margin of the order
sheet dated 20.11.1985. After death of
Habib Ullah, name of his sons namely
Eqbal Ahmad and others (respondent No. 3
to 6) came to be recorded in the revenue
record.
Registered
sale
deed
dated
25.3.2010 was executed by them with
respect to the property in question in favour
of the respondent No. 7 namely Ashok
Kumar Agarwal. On the basis of aforesaid
sale deed, the name of Ashok Kumar
Agarwal (respondent No. 7) was recorded
in the revenue record.

10. At the very belated stage, Gaon
Sabha has filed restoration application
dated 24.8.1992 against the judgment and
decree dated 8.10.1985, which was ordered
to be dismissed in default on 17.4.1993 and
against the said order, Gaon Sabha has filed
restoration application dated 27.9.1993,
which was also dismissed in default on
21.6.1996. Again restoration application
was filed on 14.8.1996, which was allowed
by order dated 14.7.1997. Being aggrieved
against
the
order
dated
14.7.1997,
respondent No. 7 has filed revision, which
was allowed by order dated 29.3.2004
passed by the revisional court relegating
the parties before the trial court to first
decide the application for the condonation
of
delay
in
filing
the
restoration
application. Consequent to the remand
order
dated
29.3.2004,
restoration
application dated 14.8.1996 was restored to
its original number but the same was
dismissed in default by order dated
25.5.2015 (annexure No. 2). Against the
order dated 25.5.2015, two restoration
applications were filed:-

(i) Restoration application dated
15.6.2015 filed on behalf of the State.

(ii) Restoration application dated
27.6.2015 filed on behalf of the Gaon
Sabha.

11. Both the aforesaid restoration
applications were rejected on 5.10.2016.
Being aggrieved with the said order dated
5.10.2016, a revision was preferred on
behalf
of
Gaon
Sabha,
which
was
dismissed vide order dated 14.8.2018
passed by respondent No. 1, which is under
challenge in the present writ petition.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has assailed the impugned orders dated
5.10.2016 and 14.8.2018, inter alia, on the
grounds that disputed property belongs to
the Gaon Sabha, therefore, no private
person can confer his right and title over
the property. Judgement and decree dated
8.10.1985 is collusive decree. Although
trial
court
has
discussed
so
many
documents/revenue records but failed to
verify the genuineness and sanctity of the
aforesaid
documents. All
the
entries
referred by the trial court are not in
consonance with the provisions of law. It is
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
further submitted that while filing the
restoration application, sufficient reason
has been assigned for non-appearance of
the petitioner but the same has illegally not
been considered by the court concerned.
Lastly, it is submitted that endeavour
should have been made to decide the suit
on merits rather than to decide it ex-parte in
the absence of the petitioner. In support of
his contention, counsel for the petitioner
has cited the case of Bhivchandra
Shankarmore Vs. Balu Gangaram More
and others, 2019 6 SCC 387 and Division
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Lekhi Ram @ Mula and another Vs.
State of UP and others; Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 9675 of 1989 decided on
20.12.2001, reported in 2002 R.L.T. 668.

13. Per contra, learned senior counsel
for the respondent No. 7 contended that
DGC (R) had appeared representing both
the defendants namely State and Gaon
Sabha. After judgment dated 8.10.1985, he
jotted the remark of ''seen' on the margin of
the order sheet dated 20.11.1985, which
clearly proves that judgment in question
was well within the knowledge of the DGC
(R). It is further contended that there was
always deliberate inaction and malafide
intention at the part of the petitioner, who
has moved as many as four restoration
applications but was never serious to argue
them on merits. Till date, judgment and
decree dated 8.10.1985 has not been
challenged in the regular appeal, as
provided under the law. Moving restoration
application, that too one after another, is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law
intending
to
harass
the
contesting
respondents for the reasons known to the
petitioner best. It is further contended that
there is no illegality, perversity and
ambiguity in the impugned orders passed
by the respondents No. 1 and 2 so as to
warrant any interference or indulgence of
this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The present writ petition is devoid of merits
and is liable to be dismissed.

14. Carefully considered the rival
submission advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record on
board.

15. The present writ petition is arising
out of a restoration application, which was
filed on behalf of present petitioner in a
declaratory suit under Section 229B of
UPZA Act. The suit filed by Habib Ullah
(father of respondents No. 3 to 6) was
decreed by judgment and decree dated
8.10.1985. After the death of Habib Ullah,
names of his sons, respondents No. 3 to 6,
had been recorded in the revenue record,
who had executed registered sale deed in
favour of the present petitioner. At a very
belated stage, the present petitioner has
filed
four
restoration
applications
at
different stages, which were dismissed.
Details of the aforesaid applications and
there outcome are properly demonstrated in
the following chart:

Seri
al
No.
Restoration
Application
dated
Order
dated/de
cided on
Result
1.
24.8.1992
against
judgment
dated
8.10.1985
17.4.1993 Dismissed
in default
2.
27.9.1993
against order
dated
17.4.1993
21.6.1996 Dismissed
in default
3.
14.8.1996
against order
17.4.1997 Allowed.
3 All. Gram Panchayat Kabirpur Distt. Chandauli Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Administration)
 Varanasi Div. & Ors.
947
dated
21.6.1996
4.
Revision
filed
by
respondent
No.
7
against order
dated
17.4.1997
29.3.2004 Revision
allowed
and
remanded
before the
trial court.
5.
Consequent
to the order
dated
29.3.2004,
restoration
application
dated
14.8.1996
was restored.
25.5.2015 Dismissed
in default
6.
Restoration
application
dated
15.6.2015
filed
on
behalf of the
State
5.10.2016 Dismissed
on merits
7.
Restoration
application
dated
17.6.2015
filed
on
behalf of the
Gaon Sabha
5.10.2016 Dismissed
on merits

16. The order dated 5.10.2016 was
assailed in revision, which was dismissed by the
respondent No. 1 vide order dated 14.8.2018.

17. Before discussing the merits of the
case, it would be befitting to consider the
scope of Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC along
with its UP amendment, which is quoted
below:

Order IX Rule 13

13. Setting aside decree ex parte
against defendant.--In any case in which a
decree is passed ex parte against a
defendant, he may apply to the Court by
which the decree was passed for an order
to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court
that the summons was not duly served, or
that he was prevented by any sufficient
cause from appearing when the suit was
called on for hearing, the Court shall make
an order setting aside the decree as against
him upon such terms as to costs, payment
into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and
shall appoint a day for proceeding with the
suit:

Provided that where the decree is
of such a nature that it cannot be set aside
as against such defendant only it may be set
aside as against all or any of the other
defendants also:

[Provided further than no Court
shall set aside a decree passed ex parte
merely on the ground that there has been an
irregularity in the service of summons, if it is
satisfied that the defendant had notice of the
date of hearing and had sufficient time to
appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.]

[Explanation.--Where there has
been an appeal against a decree passed ex
parte under this rule, and the appeal has
been disposed of an any ground other than
the
ground
that
the
appellant
has
withdrawn the appeal, no application shall
lie under this rule for setting aside that ex
parte decree.]

UP Amendment
Allahabad.- In Order IX rule 13, after
second
proviso,
insert
the
following
proviso, namely:-
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Provided also that no such
decree shall be set aside merely on the
ground of irregularity in the service of
summons if the Court is satisfied that the
defendant knew, or but for his wilful
conduct would have known, of the date of
hearing in sufficient time to enable him to
appear and answer the plaintiff's claim."

[Vide
Notification
No.
4084/35(a)3(7), dated 24th July, 1926.]

18. According to the provision of
restoration as enunciated under Order IX
Rule 13 of CPC, a defendant against whom
decree has been passed ex-parte is entitled
to get the same set aside, if he could satisfy
the court on the points;

(i) That summons was not duly
served upon him; or

(ii) That he was prevented by
sufficient cause from appearing when the
suit was called upon for hearing.

19. Intending to curb the protracting
litigation, the State of UP has added second
proviso to Rule 13 by which any
irregularity in the service of summon has
not been treated to be sufficient ground for
setting aside an ex parte decree if court is
satisfied either that the defendant knew or
he would have not for his wilful conduct
known of the date of hearing in sufficient
time to enable him to appear and answer
the plaintiff's claim. Meaning thereby, right
to get an ex-parte decree set aside would be
ceased to be available in a case where the
defendant knew, or but for his wilful
conduct would have known, of the date of
hearing in sufficient time to enable him to
appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.
Accordingly, in the matter where summons
have not duly been served upon the
defendant and the date of hearing is not
known to him but he comes to know of the
proceeding well in time he can easily find
out the date and put in appearance and
answer the plaintiff's claim. If he, without
any justification fails to take the steps to
find out the date of hearing, it would be
presumed that he has deliberately ignored
the court proceedings. His ignorance can
safely be concluded that but for his willful
conduct he would have known the date of
hearing in sufficient time so as to enable
him to appear and answer the plaintiff's
claim.

20.

In
the
matter
in
hand,
unfortunately, the defendant failed to
satisfy any of the ingredients for setting
aside the ex parte decree as enunciated
under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. This
is no the case of the defendant/petitioner
that summons was not duly served upon
him. Learned trial court has given a
categorical finding in its judgment dated
8.10.1985 that the summons was duly
served upon the defendants. Finding given
by the trial court with respect to the service
of summon upon the defendant has not
been denied by the defendant/petitioner.
Record reveals that written statement was
filed by the State through DGC (R). After
judgment and decree being passed by the
trial court, DGC (R) has jotted the remark
of "seen" on the margin of the order sheet
dated 20.11.1985, which explicitly made it
clear that DGC (R), who is representing
State and Goan Sabha, was well aware
about the judgment and decree dated
8.10.1985 passed in the suit.

21. Record reveals that all the
subsequent proceedings i.e. moving the
restoration
applications
and
filing
a
revision were pursued by the DGC (R).
Dismissal of restoration applications in
3 All. Gram Panchayat Kabirpur Distt. Chandauli Vs. Addl. Commissioner (Administration)
 Varanasi Div. & Ors.
949
default at three stages succinctly denotes
the malafide intention and deliberate
inaction
at
the
part
of
the
defendant/petitioner. No justification has
been offered by the learned counsel for the
petitioner as to under which circumstances,
despite the service of notice, the petitioner
was prevented in pursuing the suit and the
restoration applications filed one after
another. There is nothing on the record to
show that the defendant/petitioner has ever
tried to challenge the judgment and decree
dated 8.10.1985 by way of filing a regular
appeal. Perusal of memo of revision filed
before
the
learned
Commissioner
(Annexure No. 4) and the grounds of writ
petition
reveals
that
the
defendant/petitioner has tried to challenge
the ex-parte decree and dismissal of the
restoration applications only on the grounds
of the merits of the case but no cogent
reason has been assigned as to what
circumstances prevailed preventing the
defendant/petitioner from pursing the suit
as well as restoration applications.

22. Delay caused in filing the
restoration applications is also a matter of
concern. Against the judgment and decree
dated 8.10.1985 present petitioner has filed
restoration application on 24.8.1992. Even
at subsequent stages, belated restoration
applications were filed. Counsel for the
petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court as
to under what circumstances all the
restoration applications were filed at
belated stage. Even for the sake of
substantial justice if the delay caused in
filing
the
restoration
application
be
condoned, the petitioner failed to bring his
case within the realm of Order IX Rule 13
of the CPC. The trial court as well as
revisional
court,
in
dismissing
the
restoration application vide order dated
5.10.2016 and dismissing the revision vide
order dated 14.8.2018 respectively, have
discussed
the
matter
in
detail
and
succinctly pointed out gross negligence and
deliberate inaction at the part of the
defendant/petitioner in pursing the suit as
well as the restoration applications filed on
its behalf at different stages.

23. The case of Bhivchandra
Shankarmore (supra) as cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner does not
come to his rescue. The facts and
circumstances
of
the
cited
case
Bhivchandra Shankarmore (supra) is
different than that of the present matter,
wherein ex-parte judgment and decree was
initially set aside by the appellate court in
first appeal treating it within time on the
ground that defendant has availed the
remedy of restoration under Order IX Rule
13 of the CPC, therefore, the period of
pendency of the restoration application
should be treated to be sufficient ground for
the purpose of condonation of delay. The
order passed by the appellate court was set
aside by High Court on the ground that the
remedy availed under Order IX Rule 13 of
the CPC cannot be ignored, therefore, the
period of perusing the remedy by filing
restoration application cannot be excluded
in deciding the delay in filing the appeal.
Considering the aforesaid aspect of the
matter, Hon'ble Supreme Court succinctly
made an observation in paragraph 19 of the
judgment that the time spent in pursuing
the application under Order IX Rule 13
CPC is to be taken as sufficient cause for
condoning the delay in filing the first
appeal.

24. So far as the second cited case is
concerned i.e. Lekhi Ram @ Mula (supra),
it is also different from the facts and
circumstances of the present case. In the
aforesaid cited case, claim of plaintiff over
950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the property of Gaon Sabha on the basis of
adverse possession has been denied. This
cited case has no relevance in deciding the
merits of the restoration application, which is
the question before this Court. Learner
counsel for the petitioner, however, in his
entire argument, has made emphasis on the
merits of the case and tried to demonstrate
that trial court has illegally decreed the suit
on the basis of those revenue document
which were not properly verified and tried to
question the genuineness and sanctity of the
aforesaid document. It will not be befitting, at
this juncture, to discuss the merits of the case
and consider the genuineness of the revenue
records which have not been discussed and
considered in the impugned orders under
challenge passed in the matter arising out of
restoration application. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has conceded the fact as
contended by the learned counsel for
respondent No. 7, that no regular appeal has
been filed against the ex-parte judgement and
decree dated 8.10.1985. In the cited case of
Bhivchandra Shankarmore (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court has succinctly observed that
in paragraph No. 10 that a conjoint reading of
Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 96 (2) of
CPC indicates that the defendant, who
suffered ex-parte decree has two remedies:-

(i) either to file an application
under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set
aside the ex-parte decree to satisfy the court
that summons were not properly served or
those served, he was prevented by ''sufficient
cause' from appearing in the court when the
suit was called for hearing.

(ii) to file a regular appeal from the
original decree to the first appellate court and
challenge the ex-parte decree on merits.

25. In view of the observation, as made
by Hon'ble Supreme Court, remedy is still
available for the petitioner to file a regular
appeal against the ex-parte judgment and
decree dated 8.10.1985, subject to law of
limitation.

26. In this conspectus, as above, I am of
the view that no satisfactory ground has been
made out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner for interfering the impugned orders
under challenge. Counsel for the petitioner
has failed to substantiate his submission in
assailing
the
impugned
orders.
After
considering the facts and circumstances of
the present case as put forward before this
Court, it cannot be said that there was no
gross negligence and deliberate inaction at
the part of the petitioner in challenging the
ex-parte decree by way availing the remedy
of moving restoration applications at belated
stage. There is nothing on the record to show
that summons were not duly served upon the
defendant/petitioner or he was prevented by
sufficient cause from appearing when the suit
was called on for hearing. DGC (R) was
throughout present, who has pursued the
matter on behalf of Gaon Sabha at different
stages.

27. Resultantly, the present writ
petition fails and is dismissed being devoid
of merits and misconceived. There is no
order as to the cost.
----------
(2022)03ILR A950
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 15642 of 2020
connected with other cases

Awadhesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents