The Court has the discretion to reject restoration applications where the petitioners are using dilatory tactics and where the restoration applications are not bona fide.

These writ peti tions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing order dated 22-4-97 passed in Revision Nos. 178 and 179 by Assistant Commissioner of Consolidation, Gonda whereby the revisions were dismissed in default of the revisionist/writ petitioners; and order dated 17- 8-99 passed in Misc. Case Ns. 178 and 179 by the Deputy Director of Consolidation wherein the restoration ap plications for restoration of the revisions were dismissed.

2. Counsel for the parties are heard.

3. When the above noted revisions were dismissed in default on 22-4-97, then the restoration applications were filed on the ground that Sri Prasad, one of the petitioners herein, who was the Pairokar was lying ill and could not come to prosecute the revisions and that the coun sel could also not appear as he had to go to the Record-Room to search out some file. The Deputy Director, Consolidation rejected this application by a detailed order and held that the petitioners were delaying the disposal of the matter. Objec tions were filed by the opposite parties before the Deputy Director and law was shown to the effect that restoration ap plication should be rejected where the matter was being restored again and again. As an exercise the Deputy Director, Con solidation also mentioned the instance of not moving the application for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased, Prahalad, the legal representatives of the deceased being already on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that earlier conduct of the petitioners should not have been looked into in order to find out the fault lying in the last restoration application. From the order as well as from the views cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners it appears that the Courts have taken the view that the restoration ap plication may be dealt with both-ways in the interest of justice. In the case of Ram Raj and others v. D. D. C. and others, 1988 (6) LCD 109 also the Court recommended a liberal view while dealing with restora tion of cases. The only thing was to see whether a particular view was advancing the cause of justice. In this case it was observed that sufficient cause for restora tion should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence or want of bona fide is imputable to a party. In the present case the Deputy Director on the objection of oilier side, as well as on the basis of material on file, found that the delay was being caused deliberately by the petitioners in the dis posal of two revisions. For that matter he mentioned the instances in respect of these very revisions which were filed in the year 1981 and which were got dismissed on 1-6-82, 17-10-84 and 16-2-85 earlier and then in the present case on 22-4-97.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that by (sic) disposal of the consolidation matter remained in abeyance for the last about 18 years. The second instance was with respect to the non- moving of the application for sub stitution of the legal representatives (al ready on record) for three years and seven months. The learned counsel also pointed out the contents of the application and affidavit. Application dated 11-5-99, and the verification thereof, which was moved in support of the application dated 22-4-97 on 11 -5-99. The affidavit was not sworn on 22-4-97 or even thereafter upto 11-5-99 in respect of the grounds mentioned in the application Annexure No. II. On 22-4-97 the application for restoration is alleged to have been moved. The revisions were dis missed in default on that day. The ground was that one of the petitioners, namely, Sri Prasad, could not appear in the Court be cause of illness. The second ground was that his counsel had gone to the Revenue Record Room, Gonda for some work in respect of some file after informing the Reader of the Court and that in the

mean time the two revisions were dismissed. The first ground of illne