IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 4184 of 2001 (M/S) Rangi Lal Son of Sri Ayodhya Prasad, Resident of Agarwal Bhawan, Pushkar Mandir, Marg No. 104, Adarsh Gram, Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The Additional Commissioner (Admin) Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. 2. The Assistant Collector/Pargana Adhikari, Dehradun. 3. Sri Avatar Krishna 4. Anoop Krishna Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 both sons of Late Sri Chitranjan Lal, Residents of through Ram Sharan Das Jagannath and Company, Dana Mandal Phagwara, Punjab. …Respondents. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Date:- 16-12-2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. Heard Mr. K. N. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31-5-1995 and order dated 13-2-1998 whereby the suit was restored by the order dated 31-5-1995 and revision preferred against the order dated 31-5-1995 was dismissed on 13-2-1998. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the suit No. 51 of 1995-96, Chitranjan Lal Vs. Ram Swarup, was filed by the father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Late Sri Chitranjan Lal under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, which was dismissed in default on 15-5-1995. On same 2 day, the restoration application was moved by the father of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for restoring the case. According to the petitioner, before the revisional court certified copy of the order was filed wherein there was no mention of the signature of the Presiding Officer of trial Court even though the revision was dismissed ignoring the said fact. Aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court, the present writ petition has been filed. By this court, the lower court record of Suit No. 51 of 19950-96, (Chitaranjan Lal Vs. Ram Swarup), which was filed under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act was summoned to verify whether the Presiding Officer signed the order dated 13-5-1995 or not. A perusal of the lower court record reveals that on the back of the restoration application order was passed and which bears a signature of the Presiding Officer. In view of above, I find no substance in the contention of petitioner, the suit is to be decided on merit after hearing both the parties and after giving opportunity to adduce evidence. I find no illegality in the order impugned in restoring the suit to its original number. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. However, the learned Assistant Collector, Dehradun is directed to decide the Suit No. 51 of 95-96, (Chitaranjan Lal Vs. Ram Swarup) expeditiously as far as possible. Lower court record be sent back to trial court concerned. (B.S. Verma, J.) 16-12-2009 MK