WP(C) 3801/2003 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. Bo rah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. None appears for the res pondent Nos.1 despite service. None appears for the respondent Nos.3 to 6 today though the names of the learned counsel appearing for the said respondents are r eflected in the cause list. The petitioners by the present petition have challenged the order dated 20.05.2002 passed by the learned Chairman, Assam Board of Revenue in case No.5RA (RST)(Marigaon)/2003, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the presen t petitioners for restoration of Revenue Appeal No.40(M)/1997, which was dismiss ed for default on 12.12.2002, has been rejected, on the ground that the applicat ion was not accompanied by adequate number of extra copies. It appears from the impugned order dated 20.05.2002 that the Revenue App eal No.40(M)/1997 filed by the present petitioners has been dismissed for defaul t on 12.12.2002. The petitioners thereafter filed an application for restoration of the said appeal to file together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. The said application for restoratio n was registered and numbered as Misc. case No.5RA (RST)(Marigaon)/2003. The lea rned Chairman on a very technical ground has rejected the said application vide order dated 20.05.2002, as the petitioners did not enclose adequate number of extra copies of the petition seeking restoration of the appeal to file, as requi red under Regulation 16 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regulation, 1963. The lear ned Chairman instead of dismissing the application filed by the petitioners on t hat technical ground ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioners to re move the defects, so as to consider and dispose of the application on merit and had the petitioners, despite such opportunity given, not remove the defect, the said petition would have been rejected by the Board. But in the instant case, wi thout giving such opportunity the application has been rejected on the aforesaid technical ground. That being the position, the order dated 20.05.2002 passed by the learne d Chairman, Board of Revenue in Case No.5RA (RST)(Marigaon)/2003 is set aside. T he petitioners on 13.10.2010 shall appear before the Board and shall file the re quired number of copies of the petitions. In the event of filing such copies as directed, the Board shall first proceed to consider the application filed by the petitioners seeking condonation of delay and then in the event of condoning the delay shall consider the application seeking restoration in Revenue Appeal No.4 0(M)/1997. The same, however, shall be done after hearing of all the parties con cerned. It is needless to say that in the event of failure of the petitioner to appear and supply the required number of copies, the order dated 20.05.2002 pass ed by the learned Chairman, Board of Revenue in case No.5RA(RST) (Marigaon)/2003 shall automatically stands restored. The interim order passed by this Court on 23.05.2003 shall continue till 13.10.2010. It is, however, open to the petitioners to file appropriate applica tion seeking interim direction from the Board. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.