High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while notice on behalf of Gram Sabha concerned has been accepted by Sri Pankaj Gupta.

2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted that the petitioner filed revision under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with respect to chak No.317 situated at Village Dikauli, Pargana Bahraich, Tehsil Ikauna, District Shrawasti. It has been submitted that the said revison was listed on 22.4.2015 and due to non appearance of the revisionist the revision was dismissed for want of prosecution and an application for restoration was moved on 26.2.2018 and the recall was allowed on 23.3.2018. It is stated that again the matter was listed on 14.10.2024 and again the same has been dismissed in default due to non appearance of the revisionist or his counsel. The application for restoration was also given on the same day. The case was listed for hearing on the application for restoration on 6.11.2024, 26.12.2024 and 16.1.2025 but the petitioner did not appear to pursue the application for recall and accordingly on 22.1.2025, the application for recall has been rejected for want of prosecution.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submtis that the petitioner again moved application for recall of the order dated 22.1.2025 before Deputy Director of Consolidation stating that the petitioner had to visit Chandrakala Hospital (ENT) at Bahraich to see a physician due to illness of his minor son aged about three years and therefore, for aforesaid reasons could not appear on the date fixed to pursue the application for recall and the revisional authority recording the reason that on previous occasion also the petitioner had not appeared and again he is not interested to pursue his revison and rejected the application for recall.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the application for recall was filed on the same day itself and sufficient reasons were shown by him in the said application stating that the petitioner had to immediately leave to take his son to physician and for the aforesaid reasons could not appear in the aforesaid proceedings. The only ground for rejection of the application for restoration is that the petitioner had enclosed a photocopy of the medical prescription of the hospital which according to the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not admissible in evidence and consequently rejected the said application.

6. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.3.2025 in the present writ petition.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is noticed that the revision is pending before the revisional authority since 2015 and on the previous occasion also this revision was dismissed in default which was restored but the matter engaging the attention of this Court in the present case is with regard to order dated 14.10.2024 on which date the revision of the petitioner was dismissed and the petitioner had moved application for recall on the same day itself. The said application was listed on 6.11.2024, 26.12.2024 and 16.1.2025 but the petitioner did not appear to press the said application and lastly the application was listed on 22.1.2025 on which date also the petitioner did not appear and the case was dismissed in default.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he possesses sufficient material to justify his non presence and there is no question of a delay in as much as the application for recall was moved on the same day itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that substantial rights of the petitioner will be adversely affected in case the impugned order dated 18.3.2025 is not set aside and his application for recall deserves to be allowed.

9. From the aforesaid, we find that the ground on which the application for recall has been rejected is that photocopy of the medical prescription was annexed along with the application for condonation of delay. The purpose of annexing photocopy of the medical prescription is only to demonstrate the bonafide of the petitioner and the said document is not in any manner related to the dispute and cannot be considered as a piece of evidence and consequently merely because photocopy of the medical prescription was annexed could not have rejected on the ground of admissibility for rejection and accordingly the impugned order is misconceived.

10. The aspect of admissibility of a document filed in evidence is a question which could have been considered if the same was filed as evidence in the proceedings in support of the contentions of either of the parties. In the present case, medical prescription has been filed along with the application for restoration which only supports the case of the petitioner with regard to his bonafides and the reasons for his non - appearance on the day when the case was listed. The purpose of the said documents was only to satisfy the Presiding Officer about sufficient cause for non - appearance on the day the case was listed and consequently the same could not have been rejected on the ground that the same was not admissible in evidence. It is only when the said fact was contested by the either side then satisfaction may have to be recorded by the Presiding Officer with regard to satisfaction for non - appearance.

11. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid facts and also the fact that the application for recall has been filed on the same day when the matter was dismissed in default on 14.10.2024 the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the restoration be allowed. Therefore, the order dated 18.3.2025 is set aside and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to consider the application for recall of order dated 14.10.2024.

12. The petitioner undertake that he shall appear on all the dates fixed and shall not seek any further adjournment even in aforesaid circumstances.

13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is further directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

14. The petition thus stands allowed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 18.7.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while notice on behalf of Gram Sabha concerned has been accepted by Sri Pankaj Gupta.

2. In light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. It has been submitted that the petitioner filed revision under Section 48 (1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with respect to chak No.317 situated at Village Dikauli, Pargana Bahraich, Tehsil Ikauna, District Shrawasti. It has been submitted that the said revison was listed on 22.4.2015 and due to non appearance of the revisionist the revision was dismissed for want of prosecution and an application for restoration was moved on 26.2.2018 and the recall was allowed on 23.3.2018. It is stated that again the matter was listed on 14.10.2024 and again the same has been dismissed in default due to non appearance of the revisionist or his counsel. The application for restoration was also given on the same day. The case was listed for hearing on the application for restoration on 6.11.2024, 26.12.2024 and 16.1.2025 but the petitioner did not appear to pursue the application for recall and accordingly on 22.1.2025, the application for recall has been rejected for want of prosecution.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submtis that the petitioner again moved application for recall of the order dated 22.1.2025 before Deputy Director of Consolidation stating that the petitioner had to visit Chandrakala Hospital (ENT) at Bahraich to see a physician due to illness of his minor son aged about three years and therefore, for aforesaid reasons could not appear on the date fixed to pursue the application for recall and the revisional authority recording the reason that on previous occasion also the petitioner had not appeared and again he is not interested to pursue his revison and rejected the application for recall.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the application for recall was filed on the same day itself and sufficient reasons were shown by him in the said application stating that the petitioner had to immediately leave to take his son to physician and for the aforesaid reasons could not appear in the aforesaid proceedings. The only ground for rejection of the application for restoration is that the petitioner had enclosed a photocopy of the medical prescription of the hospital which according to the Deputy Director of Consolidation was not admissible in evidence and consequently rejected the said application.

6. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.3.2025 in the present writ petition.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts, it is noticed that the revision is pending before the revisional authority since 2015 and on the previous occasion also this revision was dismissed in default which was restored but the matter engaging the attention of this Court in the present case is with regard to order dated 14.10.2024 on which date the revision of the petitioner was dismissed and the petitioner had moved application for recall on the same day itself. The said application was listed on 6.11.2024, 26.12.2024 and 16.1.2025 but the petitioner did not appear to press the said application and lastly the application was listed on 22.1.2025 on which date also the petitioner did not appear and the case was dismissed in default.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he possesses sufficient material to justify his non presence and there is no question of a delay in as much as the application for recall was moved on the same day itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that substantial rights of the petitioner will be adversely affected in case the impugned order dated 18.3.2025 is not set aside and his application for recall deserves to be allowed.

9. From the aforesaid, we find that the ground on which the application for recall has been rejected is that photocopy of the medical prescription was annexed along with the application for condonation of delay. The purpose of annexing photocopy of the medical prescription is only to demonstrate the bonafide of the petitioner and the said document is not in any manner related to the dispute and cannot be considered as a piece of evidence and consequently merely because photocopy of the medical prescription was annexed could not have rejected on the ground of admissibility for rejection and accordingly the impugned order is misconceived.

10. The aspect of admissibility of a document filed in evidence is a question which could have been considered if the same was filed as evidence in the proceedings in support of the contentions of either of the parties. In the present case, medical prescription has been filed along with the application for restoration which only supports the case of the petitioner with regard to his bonafides and the reasons for his non - appearance on the day when the case was listed. The purpose of the said documents was only to satisfy the Presiding Officer about sufficient cause for non - appearance on the day the case was listed and consequently the same could not have been rejected on the ground that the same was not admissible in evidence. It is only when the said fact was contested by the either side then satisfaction may have to be recorded by the Presiding Officer with regard to satisfaction for non - appearance.

11. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid facts and also the fact that the application for recall has been filed on the same day when the matter was dismissed in default on 14.10.2024 the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the restoration be allowed. Therefore, the order dated 18.3.2025 is set aside and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to consider the application for recall of order dated 14.10.2024.

12. The petitioner undertake that he shall appear on all the dates fixed and shall not seek any further adjournment even in aforesaid circumstances.

13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is further directed to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

14. The petition thus stands allowed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 18.7.2025 RKM. RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench