The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the discretion to reject an adjournment application and proceed to decide the appeal on its merits, as long as the relevant legal provisions are considered.

( 1 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. K. Misra and Sri D. N. Gupta learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

( 2 ) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 24-8-1984 passed by the Board of Revenue in second Appeal No. 18 (z) of 1976-77 and the order dated 29-7-1976 passed by the additional Commissioner and the order dated 4-3-1976 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. A mandamus has also been sought directing the Board of Revenue to hear the appeal after giving opportunity to the counsel for the petitioner.

( 3 ) BRIEF facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are : a suit under S. 220-B of the Uttar Pradesh zarnindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed by the respondent No. 6-Deep chandra praying for declaration with regard to Plot No. 304 area 4. 60 acres on basis of adverse possession. The suit was decreed by the trial Court by its judgment dated 4-3-1976. A first appeal was filed before the additional Commissioner by the defendant which appeal was dismissed by the first appellate Court on 29-7-1976. A second appeal was filed against the order of the additional Commissioner by Chittu. The second appeal has been dismissed by the judgment dated 24-8-1984 on merits by the board of Revenue against which order the present writ petition has been filed.

( 4 ) THE case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the appeal came for hearing before the Board of Revenue on 24-8-1984 on which date the counsel for the appellant-Chittu moved an application for adjournment on which a date was given which was noted by his counsel, thereafter the Presiding officer rejected the adjournment application after hearing the counsel for the respondents. This Court on the first date of hearing of the writ petition on 24-9-1984 granted time to learned counsel for the petitioner to furnish certified copy of the order sheet indicating that the case was adjourned to 24-9-1984. However, no copy of the order sheet has been filed by the petitioner. The respondents case in the counter-affidavit is that the appeal was listed for hearing on 21-3-1984 and thereafter adjourned to several dates. The appeal was taken up on 22-8-1984 before the Board of revenue for hearing on which date the counsel for the appellant sought adjournment which was opposed. However, on the prayer of the counsel for the appellant the case was adjourned for 24-8-1984 for hearing on which date an application on false ground for adjournment that Raja Ram has died, was given by appellants counsel praying for time to take steps. The objection was filed by the respondents to the said application that Raja Ram is not dead and the application has been made on false ground. The board of Revenue rejected the application of adjournment and decided the appeal on merits. The above averments have been made in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit which has remained uncontroverted since the writ petitioner chose not to file rejoinder-affidavit despite time granted by the Court twice. It is stated in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that the appellant appeared before the member of the Board of revenue and the member of the Board of revenue had given time to bring his counsel but in spite of giving opportunity he did not turn up for pressing arguments on merits. It has been further submitted in paragraph 10 that the appellant-petitioner was throughout present when the arguments were heard in the appeal.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in support of the writ petition submitted that the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to proceed to decide the appeal on merits on 24-8-1984 after rejecting the adjournment application of the counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the Board of Revenue could at best have dismissed the appeal in default of the appellant and could not have proceeded to decide it on merits. Reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioner on provisions of O. XLI, R. 17 (1) an