(Piaintiffs) HIGH COURT OF JUDiCATURE AT BilASPUR. CHHATTSSGARH SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHR1 S.R. NAYAK,CJ. WRiT PET!TiONN0.40'!8 OF 2006, 1. Tirath Ram Sahu S/o. Late Jaa.gnath Sahu, aged about 75 years, occupation- agricuiturist 2. Pilu Ram Sahu S/o. Late Jaggnath Sahu, occupation-agricuiturist 3. DevaRam Sahu S/o. Late Jagganath Sahu, Occupation - Agricuiturist 4. Surendra S/o. Shri Dauia! Occupation - agricuiturist, Ail - resident of Viiiage Bhusrenga Tahsii-Kurud dist. Dhamatari (C.G.) Vs. 1. Shri Fagu Ram S/o. Shri Dhiraji 2. Shri Mohani S/o Shri Dhiraji 3. Smt. Rukhmin D/o. Shri Dhiraji, sil are by caste-Gond & ali resident of Viiiage Makardona, Tahsil-Nagari, Dist. Dhamatari (C.G.) 4. State of Chhatiisgarh Through Coiiector Dhamatari (C.G.) 5. The Board of Revenue Bilaspur (C.G.) Shri R.S. Patel, iearned counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Utkarsh Verma, iearned Dy. G.A. for the State of C.G. RESPONDENTS (Defendants) (Passed on 1 August, 2006) Law helps diligent not indolent person. The Collector dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for non-prosecution. Thereafterwards, an application was moved after two months under sub-Section (3) of Section 35 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for shost 'the Code') to set aside the order. That application was dismissed by the Coliector. Wrten that was chailenged before the Board or Revenue, it also dismissed the Revision. Hence, thls writ petition. lA (2) The only ground urged by the iearned counsel for the petitloners is that the first petitioner, namely, Tirath Ram Sahu was aged and therefore, he could not appear before the District Coilector when the appeal was fixed for hearing and, therefore, the Collector was not justifled in dismissing the appllcation fited under sub-Sectlon (3) of Section 35 of the Code. 1 do not find any merit in the contention. There were four appeiiants in the appeai fiied before the District Collector. Even assuming that the first petitioner was aged and couid not appear before the District Collector when the appeal was listed for final hearing, nothing is statsd in the writ petition why the remaining appeilants could not appear before the Collector. At this stage itself, it needs to be noticed that the appeliants were represented by the counse! also. From the record, it could be seen that on the date when the appeal was fixed for fina^ heartng, nelther the appellants nor their counsei was prssent before the Cotlector. The discretionary order passed by the Coiiector under sub-Section (3) of Section 35 of the Code as affirmed by the Board of Revenue cannot lightiy be interfered with by the Court under Artlclss 226/227 of the Constitution of !ndia. There is no failure of justice. The writ petition Is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice