IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11336 of 2011 1. Md.Hatim son of late Md. Hadish, 2. Md. Kudush son of late Md. Hadish, 3. Khurshid Ahmad son of late Md. Hadish, All residents of village Piyaur, P.O. Gayghat, P.S. M.H. Nagar, District Siwan, … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Land Reforms Department, State of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, 2. The Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, 3. The Collector, Siwan, 4. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Siwan, … Respondents Ist Set 5. Bibi Rojidin daughter of late Sk. Nizamuddin, wife of Abid Hussain, resident of village Piyaur, P.O. Gayghat, PS M.H. Nagar, District Siwan, … Pre-emptor/Respondent 2nd Set 6. Bibi Makbulan wife of late Sk. Nizamuddin, 7. Bibi Kabajan wife of Reyaz Hussain, 8. Bibi Nooraisa wife of Md. Ishahaque, 9. Bibi Sahjidan wife of Sk. Amiruddin, All residents of village Piyaur, P.O. Gayghat, P.S. M.H. Nagar, District Siwan, … Vendors/Respondents 3rd Set For the Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Advocate For the State: Mr. Sushil Kr. Singh, AC to GP 1 For Resp. No. 5: Mr. Dhaneshwar Pd. Gupta, Advocate … 2 23.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the State and respondent no. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that respondent nos. 6 to 9, i.e., the vendors, have not appeared before the revisional court despite service of notice, thus, no notice is required to be served to them. 2 This contention is also not challenged by the respondent no. 5. Petitioner challenges the resolution dated 28.04.2011 as contained in Annexure 4, passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, respondent no. 2, in Pre-emption Revision Case No. 118 of 2005. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid revision application was dismissed for default on 16.11.2010 and a petition for restoration of the same had been filed by the petitioners, however, that was dismissed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, on the ground that the same has been filed beyond the period of 30 days without filing any petition for the purpose of condoning the delay. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the reasons for delay stand explained in the restoration application itself and that could have been considered by the revisional authority or time could have been granted to the petitioners for filing a petition for condoning the delay, however, the same has been dismissed on the aforesaid account. Learned counsel further submits that the order would highly prejudice the petitioners as they 3 are the purchasers having a good case. It is further submitted that from perusal of the appellate order, which was challenged in the aforesaid revision, it would appear that there has been no application of mind while passing the same. The appeal was disposed of reiterating the grounds mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that no separate application was filed by the petitioners for condoning the delay. However, he does not challenge the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the delay stands explained in the restoration application itself. A copy of the aforesaid application has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioners for perusal of this Court at the time of hearing. In the opinion of this Court, it is well settled that technicality should not come in the way of doing full justice. The revision application was dismissed for default and from perusal of the restoration application filed on behalf of the petitioners, it appears that the reasons explaining the omission and delay stands sufficiently recorded therein. Reference is made in this 4 regard to a decision of the Apex Court in K. Rudrappa v. Shivappa, AIR 2004 Supreme Court, 4346. In the aforesaid case, the application filed for substitution of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased was rejected on the ground that no separate petition either for setting aside abatement or under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay was filed. However, the Apex Court has held that such technicality should not come in the way in doing full justice. In above view of the matter, I deem it proper that the matter should be decided on merit. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order impugned as contained in Annexure 4 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, respondent no. 2, to decide the revision on its own merit and in accordance with law. However, this order would be subject to payment of the cost of Rs. 750/- in favour of respondent no. 5. SC ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)