The court ruled that procedural delays should be examined contextually, emphasizing the need for justice over strict adherence to timelines, allowing case merits to guide decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, holding the brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229 -B of The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the "U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act"), was filed by father of petitioner in respect to plot no.192 (New Nos. 24M, area .06 decimal, 25M, area .02 decimal, 30M, area .03 decimal), before the Sub Divisional Officer which was registered as Case No.244/232/353/90. In the aforementioned suit, issues were framed before the trial court and parties have adduced evidence in support of their cases. The trial court/S.D.O. vide judgment and decree dated 23.3.1998 decreed the plaintiff's suit declaring the plaintiff as Bhumidhar of the plot in question. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 23.3.1998, an appeal was filed by the father of the contesting respondent No.2 before the Commissioner which was registered as Appeal No.49/35/G-1998. The aforementioned appeal was heard finally by the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, which was allowed vide judgment dated 17.10.2002, setting aside the order of the trial court dated 23.3.1998. Against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner dated 17.10.2002, second appeal was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Board of Revenue which was registered as Second Appeal No.8/2002-03. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 13.11.2007, dismissed the second appeal for non-prosecution. Against the dismissal of the second appeal for non-prosecution, a restoration application along with prayer for condonation of delay was filed on 23.3.2009 on behalf of the petitioner which has been rejected as time barred under the impugned order dated 15.7.2009. Hence, this writ petition for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.7.2009 passed by respondent no.1 and direct to respondent no.1 to decide/pass order on restoration application dated 23.3.2009 after taking lenient view, condoning the delay and restore the case on its original number and status."

3.This Court vide order dated 16.9.2009 entertained the matter & directed the parties to maintain the status quo with regard to possession over the land in dispute.

4. In pursuance of the order dated 16.9.2009 parties have exchanged their affidavit.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner's father under Section 229 -B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act was decreed by the trial court after framing issues and giving parties to lead evidence in accordance with law but the second appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the 1st appellate court, has been dismissed for non- prosecution and the restoration application has also been rejected as time barred in arbitrary manner. He submitted that the order, rejecting the restoration application be set aside and necessary direction be issued to the Board of Revenue/respondent no.1 to decide the petitioner's restoration application, taking liberal view in the matter.

6. On the other hand, Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that the second appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution in the year 2007 and the restoration application was filed in the year 2009, as such, Board of Revenue has rightly rejected the restoration application filed by the petitioner. He submitted that the second appeal was filed