1 2025:CGHC:13934 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 188 of 2023  Rajkumar Sahu S/o Late Panchuram Sahu Aged About 52 Years R/o Ashwani Nagar, Sahu Bada, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Nambhu Lal S/o Shri Ghataru Sahu R/o Village Bhendarwani, Tashil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. B. L. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State : Mr. Shubham Bajpai, P.L. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 22-03-2025 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an application U/s 89 of the C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 was moved by respondent No. 1 before the Additional Tehsildar, Sub-Tehsil Bhakhara, District-Dhamtari, which was allowed vide order dated 20.08.2014. He further submits that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before SDO(R), Kurud, District Dhamtari, whereby the order passed by Additional Tehsildar was affirmed vide order dated 28.02.2015. He contends that thereafter, a second appeal was preferred before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division and the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.03.24 14:07:47 +0530 2 04.04.2019. He further contends that an application for restoration was moved on 22.05.2019 but that application was moved after the expiry of 30 days and it was not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, therefore, the application for restoration moved under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC was rejected vide order dated 18.07.2022. He argues that a revision was preferred against the said order before the Board of Revenue and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.11.2022 treating it an not maintainable. He further argues that the Board of Revenue has committed an error of law in dismissing the revision. 2) On the other hand, Mr. Kotecha submits that the Board of Revenue has passed a well-reasoned order which does not warrant any interference. 3) Learned State counsel also supports the order impugned. 4) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with the petition. 5) Evidently, the second appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner, Raipur Division was dismissed for want of prosecution on 04.04.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of CPC for restoration of appeal on 22.05.2019, but the application for condonation of delay was not moved along with that application, therefore, the authority concerned rejected the application for restoration vide order dated 18.07.2022. 6) It appears that the petitioner failed to challenge the order dated 04.04.2019 whereby his appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and challenged only the order dated 18.07.2022, therefore, the Board of Revenue treated the appeal to be not-maintainable. 7) Admittedly, the finding recorded by the Board of Revenue appears to 3 be reasonable. The petitioner ought to have challenged the order dated 04.04.2019 along with the order dated 18.07.2022. 8) However, taking into consideration the fact that technicalities should not defeat the ends of justice, therefore, the order dated 21.11.2022 is hereby set-aside. 9) Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed and the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 21.11.2022 is hereby quashed. One opportunity is afforded to the petitioner to file a fresh revision before the Board of Revenue challenging therein the order dated 04.04.2019 along with the order dated 18.07.2022. 10) If such an appeal is preferred, it is expected that the Board of Revenue shall decide the same on its own merits strictly in accordance with law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Ajinkya