Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:76755 Court No. - 49 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1664 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raju Respondent :- Board Of Revenue U.P. And 22 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajaj Ahmad,Akhtar Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kshatresh Kumar,Ramakant Tiwari,Sunil Kumar Singh,Umesh Chandra Tiwari Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J. A certified copy of the impugned order dated 03.11.2019 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut has been field along with a supplementary affidavit today in Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is taken on record. Let it be numbered by the office. Since a short point in involved and all contesting parties are represented this Court proposes to hear this matter forthwith. Admit. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 is accepted by Mr. Girijesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and that on behalf of respondent no. 5 by Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate. Both the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and the learned Counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha waive their right to file a counter affidavit. Mr. Ramakant Tiwari, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 9 and 11 and that on behalf of respondent no. 10 by Mr. Vipin Chandra Pal and Mr. Umesh Chandra Tiwari. They also waive their right to file a counter affidavit. Since respondent nos. 12 and 13 are proforma respondents, issue of notice to them is dispensed with. Respondent nos. 6 to 11 are the plaintiffs of the suit that was instituted before the Sub Divisional Officer for a declaration of title. The suit was dismissed vide decree dated 23.03.2009. The plaintiff-respondents appealed the decree to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, which upon assignment, came to be heard by the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner vide judgment and decree dated 03.11.2009 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The defendant-petitioners filed two second appeals to the Board of Revenue being Second Appeal No. 05/2009-10/Bulandshahr and Second Appeal No. 06/2009- 10/Bulandshahr. Both the appeals were connected and pending at the admission stage. It appears that three adjournments were granted to the learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent nos. 6 to 11 on payment of Rs. 1000/- each in costs by the Board, which were not made good. On 16.01.2025, when the appeal came up, the learned Counsel for the petitioner was not present. The Board noticing the non compliance with the earlier orders for payment of costs dated 01.10.2024, 22.10.2024 and 22.11.2024 ordered both the appeals to stand dismissed. The order dated 16.01.2025 is not an order dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution, but on merits, may be summarily. In the absence of the appellant even if the provisions of explanation to Order XIV Rule 17-A CPC does not apply proprio vigore, by analogy a civil appeal ought not be dismissed on merits in the appellant's absence. That apart, for the non payment of costs, the execution of that order could have been directed or the costs taxed to the decree. To dismiss the appeal on merits is a bit harsh. This Court does not say that the Board was utterly wrong in taking exception to the petitioner's conduct about non adherence to the orders made by the Board for payment of costs but the dismissal of the petitioner's regular appeal on that ground is not warranted. Learned Counsel for the respondents say that the petitioner has been harassing the plaintiff-respondents by seeking adjournments on one hand, and on the other, not paying costs levied by the Board. There is substance in the aforesaid submissions advanced by Mr. Vipin Chandra Pal and Mr. Umakant Tiwari. This Court is of opinion that ends of justice in this case would require that the order impugned be set aside and the two appeals, to wit, Second Appeal No. 05/2009-10/Bulandshahr and Second Appeal No. 06/2009-10/Bulandshahr restored to the Board's file subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits before the Registrar of the Board a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in costs within a period of ten days. This shall include the costs awarded by the Board. After deposit of the said costs before the Board, the appeals will be re-admitted and restored to the Board's file. Subject to the petitioner complying with the condition of deposit, the appeals will be heard by the Board of Revenue and determined on merits. It is further directed that the petitioner will not seek adjournment before the Board and will regularly appear on all dates fixed. If the learned Counsel has some difficulty on a particular date, alternate arrangements shall be made. This petition is allowed, accordingly and the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 stand quashed. Let this order be communicated to the Registrar, Board of Revenue, Circuit Court at Meerut by the Registrar (Compliance within 48 hours. Order Date :- 12.5.2025/Deepak Digitally signed by :- DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad