JUDGMENT :

1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer "(b)" made in the writ petition is incorrect, therefore, he does not want to press the same and is confined to only prayer "(a).

2. Heard Sri Ravindra Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.

3. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:-

"(a) Issue a suitable order or direction to command the respondent no.1 to decide the Suit No.580 of 2017 (Smt. Urmila Chand Vs. Kailash Chand Bajpai) pending since 09.05.2017 in one or two hearings."

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 had already been decided vide order dated 22.05.1999.

5. Against the said order, the respondent nos.3 to 5 filed an application along with delay condonation application on 09.05.2017 and on the said application, the interim order was passed by the concerned Tehsildar vide order dated 20.11.2019 but till today the restoration application has not been decided.

6. Learned Standing Counsel states that no useful purpose will be served in calling for the counter affidavit and keeping the writ petition pending and an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent no.1 to consider the grievance of the petitioner within stipulated period.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into its merit and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.1, Tehsildar, Sadar, Gorakhpur to decide the Suit No.580 of 2017 (Smt. Urmila Chand Vs. Kailash Chand Bajpai) pending before it expeditiously, in accordance with law, with due notice to affected parties, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order if there is no legal impediment.