Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13530 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2031 of 2025 Petitioner :- Satyendr Prakash And Another Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner, Devipatan Division, Gonda And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hari Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the State respondents. This Court on 03.03.2025 had passed following order which is read as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. The petitioners challenged the order passed in revision dated 09.11.2023 on the premise that in mutation proceedings, no notice was issued to the petitioners. It is stated that the mutation case was dismissed for want of prosecution whereafter the private respondents had initiated a restoration application but it was filed against a dead person. Later, an application for substitution was moved wherein the heirs of deceased Rani Devi were brought on record, however, no notice was issued to them and in this context, the restoration application was allowed ex-parte without notice. In this regard, let the learned Standing Counsel seek complete instructions as to when the restoration application was filed, when the substitution application of Rani Devi was filed, when were the notices issued to the heirs of Rani Devi as well as the date and the mode of service. List this matter day after tomorrow, i.e. 05th March, 2025, as fresh." In pursuance of the aforesaid order, learned Standing counsel has placed record before this Court and from a perusal thereof it indicates that the present petitioners (through their predecessors) had put in appearance before the Court of Tehsildar on 26.12.2018. It is the case of the petitioners that they had sought time to file objections but no time was granted and the proceedings came to be decided on 28.12.2018 without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is further urged that after the aforesaid, an application was moved seeking recall of the order alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the Court of Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar District Gonda has allowed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and directed the matter to be heard on merits. This order has been assailed by filing a revision before the respondent no.1 who noticed that the order dated 09.03.2005 merely condoned the delay and as such an order does not decide the rights of the parties, consequently, denied to entertain the revision. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that without affording reasonable opportunity the order has been passed and the mere fact that the revision has been dismissed treating it to be an interlocutory order is also not valid. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, it is borne out that the petitioners had put in appearance on 26.12.2018, thereafter, the case came to be decided on 28.12.2018, however, the fact still remains that upon an application for recall which was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay has been condoned. No rights of the parties on merits have yet been decided. The matter is still to be considered on its own merits. This Court further finds that the revisional court had passed the order dated 09.11.2023 and the instant petition has been filed on 17.02.2025 after more than a year and a quarter. From a perusal of the entire writ petition the only explanation given regarding filing of this petition with such delay is in paragraph-38 and the same is reproduced hereinafter:- "38. That in the mean time the petitioner no.2 became ill due to which the writ petition could not be filed earlier. A photocopy of the prescription of the petitioner no.2 is being filed herewith as Annexure no.15 to this Writ Petition." Having considered the aforesaid paragraphs and noticing annexure-15 which is in context with paragraph-38 of the petition, it indicates that the said medical document is dated 11.03.2023 and it does not indicate as what is the injury/disablement which prevented the petitioners to file the aforesaid petition in time. The averments and the certificate are too vogue and disconnected. Considering that the matter is already before the trial court where it is to be decided on merits, this Court taking an over all view of the matter is not inclined to entertain the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. The original record has been handed over to the learned Standing counsel. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench