ORDER :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

1. This is plaintiffs' petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 19.09.2007 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rudrapur, whereby their application seeking restoration of the suit, which was dismissed under Order 9, Rule 3, C.P.C., has been rejected. Petitioners have also challenged the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in civil revision No. 65 of 2000, whereby the revision filed by them against the trial court's order dated 19.09.2007, too was dismissed.

2. Predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance, which was registered as Original Suit No. 205 of 1990. The said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution on 21.05.1996. The predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners moved an application for restoration of the suit under Order 9, Rule 4 of C.P.C., which was rejected on 25.01.1997.

3. After a lapse of more than nine years, petitioners again moved an application for restoration of the suit along with a delay condonation application, which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 31 of 2006. The delay of nine years was sought to be explained by the petitioners by stating that Sri Dhanpat Rai (father of petitioner Nos. 7 to 9) who was plaintiff No. 2 in the suit had suffered paralytic attack in the year 1991, consequently he was unable to move; likewise Bishambhar Dayal (father of petitioner Nos. 1 to 6) plaintiff No. 1 also suffered paralytic attack in the last week of December, 1996, as a result, the restoration application filed by them, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 1996 remained unattended, consequently, the said application was rejected vide order dated 25.01.1997.

4. In the said application, petitioners further stated that Bishambhar Dayal (plaintiff No. 1) had passed away in the year 2003 while Dhanpat Rai (plaintiff No. 2) died in the year 1999, and petitioners had no knowledge about Original Suit No. 205 of 1990 and Miscellaneous Case No. 24 of 1996; they learnt about the said case in September, 2006, when their counsel, appearing before the High Court, informed them that the suit filed by their father has been dismissed on 21.05.1996.

5. The defendant to the suit opposed the delay condonation application and stated that the averments made by the petitioners that Bishambhar Dayal and Dhanpat Rai were seriously ill since 1991 is incorrect and the Medical Certificates produced by petitioners in support of their contention that their father were serious ill, are fabricated. Defendant relied upon one application made by Bishambhar Dayal in the court of Consolidation Officer on 04.06.2002 wherein he had stated that he was not well between 20.03.2001 to 03.06.2002, to belie the case set up by petitioners. Defendant further contended that Bishambhar Dayal had appeared in the court of Consolidation Officer, Kichha on 26.10.1998 and had moved an application and thereafter he had visited the court on 15.03.1999 and 18.10.1999 also.

6. Learned trial court rejected the delay condonation application of the petitioners vide order dated 19.09.2007. Petitioners challenged the said order by filing Civil Revision No. 65 of 2007, which was dismissed by learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar vide judgment dated 31.10.2007. Feeling aggrieved by these two orders, petitioners have approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

7. The order passed by learned trial court is on record as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Learned trial court has rejected the delay condonation application on following two grounds:-

(i) The Medical Certificates issued by Dr. P.D. Tiwari, which were relied by the petitioners to prove the factum of illness of their predecessors, are dated 20.03.2001 and 01.06.1998. In the landline telephone number of the doctor, given in the Medical Certificates, digit "2" is prefixed, while as per the information provided by Telecommunication Dep