The main legal point established is that a restoration application must be filed with necessary parties impleaded, and failure to do so renders the application defective and liable to be dismissed.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.: -

Heard Shri V.P. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shad Khan, who appears for the respondent No. 2.

2. The petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 26.04.2008 and 07.06.2008 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

3. The revision No. 194 was filed by the Abdul Waheed Khan. This revision arose out of proceedings for allotment of chaks. The revision was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 26.04.2008 and with it connected revision was also allowed in part. The petitioner was arrayed as respondent in the revision. As such, aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2008, the petitioner filed a restoration application claiming that the order dated 26.04.2008 was an ex parte order which has been passed without hearing him. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 07.06.2008, has dismissed the recall application. Hence this writ petition.

4. I have perused the order dated 26.04.2008 as also the correction table appended thereto. From the correction table, it is clear that by this order four chak holders were effected. They were Chak Holder No. 136 Abdul Waheed, Chak Holder No. 2462 Shamsuddin, Chak Holder No. 2663 Saheed as also bachat land. This order was a composite order. The copy of the restoration application filed by the petitioner is also on record and its perusal shows that the petitioner had impleaded only five persons as opposite parties in the restoration application. They are Jagdish Chandra, Satish Chandra, Jitendra Kumar and Gyanwati. Out of these persons impleaded, none of them were effected by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The persons whose chaks were actually modified namely Shamsuddin as also the Gaon Sabha were not parties to the restoration application.

5. In view of the aforesaid fact, the restoration application itself was defective. The court below has dismissed the restoration application on merits without noticing the aforesaid discrepancy that none of the person effected by the order dated 26.4.2008 were parties to the case initiated by means of the restoration application filed by the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order was ex parte against him but the restoration application has been dismissed only on the reasoning that since a large number of parties were appearing and they had all been heard, the mere fact that in this rush of persons, if somebody has not been appended his signature on the order-sheet the order cannot said to be said ex parte.

7. Be that as it may, since the restoration application itself was defective having been filed without impleading necessary parties thereto, the restoration application under no circumstances could have been allowed. Even in the writ petition, the persons whose chaks were effected by the order dated 26.4.2008 have not been impleaded and the order to that extent has become final.

8. Under the circumstances, any discussion on the merits of the order passed while dismissing the restoration application will be purely academic. Since necessary parties were not impleaded in the restoration application or before this Court, no effective relief can be granted to the petitioner.

9. Under the circumstances, the writ petition as also the restoration application filed before the court below are defective as framed and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

10. According the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.