The court emphasized that parties cannot take advantage of the dismissal of an appeal for want of prosecution and allowed the applications filed by the appellants to restore the status quo ante in the revenue records.

ORDERORDER

1. The instant second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the appellants, who were the defendants before the Trial Court against the judgment and order dated 18.08.2005 vide which, the Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal (No. 7/2001) preferred on behalf of the defendants being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 24.02.2001 passed by the Trial Court by which, the Trial Court had allowed and decreed the suit, seeking declaration and injunction, in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents herein).

2. On perusal of the record, this Court finds that this appeal was admitted for consideration, while formulating the substantial questions of law, on 13.04.2006. Interim order to the effect of maintaining status quo with respect to the suit property was also passed in favour of the appellants which was confirmed by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2006.

3. On 06.12.2017, the present second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, the same has been restored by this Court vide order dated 29.07.2019 by allowing S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 35/2018.

4. This Court also finds that in the interregnum period, i.e., from 06.12.2017 to 29.07.2019, the respondents/plaintiffs had approached the concerned Tehsildar on 06.03.2018 and prayed for alteration in the revenue record by saying that the second appeal filed by the appellants had been dismissed by the High Court and, therefore, there is no hitch in initiating the proceedings for altering the revenue entries; and the concerned Tehsildar vide order dated 24.08.2018 had proceeded to pass final order in the matter, while proceeding ex-parte against the appellants herein.

5. It is noticed that on coming to know about alteration in the revenue entries by the concerned Tehsildar on the prayer of the respondents, learned counsel for the appellants has moved an application under Section 151 CPC, seeking continuance of the orders passed by this Court on 13.04.2006 and 10.05.2006. Another application has also been preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 141 CPC for restitution of revenue entries of the suit land, which were changed by the respondents on 24.08.2018.

6. This Court finds that an application has also been preferred on behalf of the respondents under Section 151 CPC, seeking recalling of the order dated 29.07.2019 passed in S.B. Civil Restoration Application No. 35/2018.

7. In support of the application filed by the appellants under Section 151 CPC and another application filed under Section 141 CPC, learned counsel for the appellants stated that the present second appeal was admitted, after hearing both the sides and on 10.05.2006, stay was confirmed, also after hearing both the sides. Learned counsel further urges that due to illness of counsel for the appellants, she could not appear before the Hon'ble Court and as per her instructions, her junior was also not timely appeared before the Court and the second appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on 06.12.2017 and in the garb of that order, without disclosing the actual position, application was submitted before the concerned Tehsildar (Land Records), Hurda, District Bhilwara on 18.12.2017, just few days after dismissal of the second appeal, by concealing the fact that the appeal was not decided on merits but was dismissed for want of prosecution. On the basis of misleading of facts on behalf of the respondents, amendment was carried out by the concerned Tehsildar in the revenue records. On the basis of the application for restoration of the second appeal which is supported by the affidavit, after hearing both the sides on merits, the second appeal was restored on 29.07.2019. As the entries in the revenue records were changed in between period, therefore, one application under Section 151 CPC with the prayer that the effect and operation of the order dated 13.04.2006 and 10.05.2006 may kindly be continued till the final disposal of the ap