JUDGMENT M. S. Mukherjee, J.—The petitioner had filed a Revision petition before this Court on 10-12-1987 under section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Restitution of Mortgaged Act, 1976 against the order of the learned Commissioner dated 17-8-1987 in appeal No 23/80, requesting this Court to set aside the order of the learned Commissioner. 2. The case was adjourned for hearing from time to time. Eventually on 13-1-1989, this Court ordered as under:— "Petitioners son Sh. Radha Krishan has requested for an adjournment because petitioners counsel is unable to attend the Court today. Earlier on 27-5-1988, the counsel also has sought for an adjournment on the ground that he was not having brief of the case with him and my learned predecessor allowed this request. Again on 4-11-1988, petitioner has requested for another adjournment. Today neither the petitioner is present nor his counsel. His son, who is present, is not having power of attorney. Therefore, the case is dismissed in default." 3. In other words, the case was dismissed even before admission. Subsequently, the petitioner, through the instant petition, has requested this Court for restoration of the case. He has stated that on the last date of hearing i. e. on 13-1-1989, his counsel was busy in connection with a criminal case hearing in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Theog due to which the learned Counsel could not appear before this Court. The petitioner has further stated that he is an old man of 75 years age and lives at a distance from motorable road. So, it was not possible for him to appear before this Court. 4. During the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that since he was pre-occupied in the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrates Court, he had requested the petitioners son Shri Radha Krishan on 13-1-1989 to seek an adjournment. The learned Counsel could not, however, explain why the case was not properly represented on the previous date of hearing as well i. e. on 4-11-1988. On that date also, the petitioners son appeared and he sought for an adjournment, through a written application on the part of the petitioner merely mentioning the reason that the petitioner was ill. There was no mention why at least the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not attend the Court. On that date also, the petitioners son appeared and he sought for an adjournment, through a written application on the part of the petitioner merely mentioning the reason that the petitioner was ill. There was no mention why at least the learned Counsel for the petitioner could not attend the Court. The learned Counsel had earlier in fact appeared before this Court on 27-5-1988, but had sought for adjournment in order to study his brief properly. 5. These facts indicate that the petitioner has not been seriously pursuing his case. 6. Apart from this, without prejudice to the decision of the Court about the restoration of the case, I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner about the merits of his petition on the point of admission. In the said petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of the learned Commissioner dated 17-8-1987. Briefly speaking, the facts of the case are that the petitioner or his predecessors-in-interest had mortgaged their lands comprised in Khata No. 6/9-min, Khatauni No. 22/37-min, Khasra Nos. 149 and 151 having an area of 11-7 bighas in Village Dakoli, Tehsil Theog, with the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents some time in 1949 or near-about. Different amounts so stated were involved in consideration of the mortgage. An application was made before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Theog on 13-8-1979 by the petitioner/appellant for redemption of this mortgage. The Sub-Divisional Collector having heard the parties, ordered on 15-5-1980 for redemption of mortgage of the land, comprised in Khasra No. 149. However, about Khasra No. 151, he held that it was under tenancy of the respondents, and, therefore, its possession could not be restored to the appellant irrespective of the fact of extinguishment of the mortgage deed. The petitioner/appellant challenged before the learned Divisional Commissioner this order of Sub-Divisional Collector, dated 15-5-1980 so far as Khasra No. 151 is concerned and filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Simla Division. 7. The learned Commissioner, in his impugned order, dated 17-8-1987 on the appeal held that he has no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Collector and he rejected the appeal. Hence this subsequent revision petition by the petitioner before this Court, the dismissal of which has already been discussed above. 8. Yet I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. Hence this subsequent revision petition by the petitioner before this Court, the dismissal of which has already been discussed above. 8. Yet I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order. There is, otherwise, no apparent illegality in the order of the learned Commissioner requiring intervention of this Court through revision. The learned Commissioner, in the impugned order, has discussed in detail various facts and arguments advanced by the parties. During the arguments before the learned Commissioners Court, the petitioner contended about one mortgage, which had already been redeemed and the land (Khasra No. 151) was allegedly mortgaged second time with one Shri Sita Ram, who is the father of respondents No. 1 to 9 in the instant case. Then, the petitioner/appellant argued that before the second mortgage came into operation, the land in question had come into the possession of the petitioner/appellant and so with the extinguishment of the second mortgage, the appellant/petitioner was entitled to the restoration of mortgaged land. 9. The learned Counsel for the respondent, according to the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, opposed introduction altogether new evidence at the appeal stage (i. e. the admissibility of certain mutation No. 31) and the contention of the mortgage of the land second time. The learned Commissioner further analysed the fact indicating that respondent is in continuance possession of land in dispute, namely Khasra No. 151. 10. The learned Commissioner then carefully analysed the arguments of both the parties and he came to the conclusion that tenancy and mortgage were subsisting simultaneously on the same land. He then rightly came to the conclusion that even if the extinguishment of the mortgage took place, rights of tenancy could not be deemed to have been surrendered by implication. There is nothing on record to show that at any stage, ejectment of respondents or their predecessors-in-interest had been ordered by any Revenue Officer in accordance with law. Therefore, even assuming that the land had been mortgaged second time by the petitioner/appellant in 1954, it could not amount to an implied extinguishment of the tenancy of the respondent. Since the learned Sub-Divisional Collector had held that the tenancy rights of the respondents were still continuing, the learned Commissioner did not consider it necessary to interfere with this process because of the attraction of the provisions of H. P. Restitution of Mortgage Act, 1976. 11. Since the learned Sub-Divisional Collector had held that the tenancy rights of the respondents were still continuing, the learned Commissioner did not consider it necessary to interfere with this process because of the attraction of the provisions of H. P. Restitution of Mortgage Act, 1976. 11. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, I find no apparent illegality in the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (which is a concurrent finding with the lower court), necessitating admission of the case at this stage and prolonging litigation involving so many respondents after such a long period of time. Also, as already stated above, the petitioner has not been pursuing his case before the Court seriously-calling for restoration of the impugned order of this Court already dismissing the case in default. The instant petition, is, therefore, rejected Announced today in the lower Court. Petition rejected-