JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- As identical questions of law & facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the indicated five revision petitions, arising out of the similar impugned orders between the same parties, by virtue of this common decision, in order to avoid the repetition. 2. The matrix of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant petitions and emanating from the record, is that, initially, the Sub-Registrar had referred the sale deeds of the petitioners to the Collector to determine the market value of the land in question for the purpose of stamp duty, u/s 47-A of The Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Act and Rules, 1978 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act & relevant Rules”). The Collector was stated to have assessed the excess market value of the land in litigation to the tune of Rs. 2,75,000/- at the back of petitioners-vendees and accordingly ordered for recovery of deficient stamp duty, by way of a very brief impugned order dated 28.11.1995. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed the appeals before the District Judge (Appellate Court). Since no body appeared on their behalf, so, their connected appeals were dismissed in default on 26.7.1996. The applications for their restoration filed by the petitioners were dismissed as well, by means of impugned orders dated 1.9.1997 by the appellate Court. 4. Sequelly, the petitioners did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petitions, to challenge the impugned orders, invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petitions deserve to be accepted in this context for the reasons mentioned here-in-below. 6. As is evident from the record that the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed in default on 26.7.1996. They moved applications for their restoration/re-admission, inter-alia, pleading that they have appointed their attorney Om Parkash to file the appeals. He engaged Mr.S.L. Sehrawat, Advocate, who filed the appeals. At the time of engagement, their counsel asked them that they were not required to appear on every date personally in the court. They moved applications for their restoration/re-admission, inter-alia, pleading that they have appointed their attorney Om Parkash to file the appeals. He engaged Mr.S.L. Sehrawat, Advocate, who filed the appeals. At the time of engagement, their counsel asked them that they were not required to appear on every date personally in the court. It was claimed that subsequently, their counsel had neither appeared in the Court nor informed them about the dismissal of the appeals in default on 26.7.1996. As soon as, they came to know about the dismissal of their appeals in default, then, they contacted their counsel, who explained the reason of illness for non-appearance in the Court. Thereafter, they engaged another counsel and filed the applications for restoration of the appeals. The respondent-State filed a very vague reply and prayed for dismissal of the pointed applications. 7. Consequently, the appellate Court framed the issues and petitioners brought on record their evidence. Although the State did not lead any evidence to rebut their evidence, but still, the appellate Court dismissed their applications for restoration of their appeals, by virtue of impugned orders dated 1.9.1997. 8. Such thus being the position on record, now the short and significant question, though important, which invites an immediate attention of this court is, as to whether there were sufficient grounds to restore the appeals of petitioners or not ? 9. Having regard to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the affirmative in this regard. 10. As indicated here-in-above, the petitioners, in order to prove the sufficient grounds for restoration of the appeals, examined, on oath, their attorney AW1 Om Parkash son of Ram Parshad, who has duly corroborated the contents of the applications and inter-alia maintained that on 10.8.1996, he came to know about the dismissal of the appeals in default from the Clerk of his counsel, who has also told that their counsel Mr.Sehrawat generally remains sick and has also been hospitalized. AW2 Ram Gopal s/o Puran Chand, Clerk had stated that Sh.S.L.Sehrawat, Advocate of the petitioners had fallen ill and remained sick till 26.7.1996. Thereafter, he left his practice on account of his illness. Not only that, AW3 Dev Dutt Yadav, Clerk of the office of District Bar Association, has also maintained, on oath, that he had not seen Mr.S.L.Sehrawat, Advocate coming to the Courts since May, 1996. Thereafter, he left his practice on account of his illness. Not only that, AW3 Dev Dutt Yadav, Clerk of the office of District Bar Association, has also maintained, on oath, that he had not seen Mr.S.L.Sehrawat, Advocate coming to the Courts since May, 1996. Even he has not paid the prescription/fees of the Bar Association since January, 1996. 11. It is not a matter of dispute that the evidence of the petitioners remained un-rebutted as the respondent-State did not produce any evidence to rebut their evidence. Meaning thereby, it stands proved on record that Mr.S.L.Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioners had fallen ill on the relevant date and thereafter had left his practice, owing to his illness. He has not informed the petitioners about the dismissal of their appeals in default. Thus, the illness of a counsel, to my mind, is sufficient ground to restore their appeals. Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the legal rights and liabilities of the parties should be decided on merits by the Courts, instead of dismissing them on technical ground, which would naturally occasion miscarriage of justice to the concerned party. Moreover, the petitioners cannot be blamed/penalized for illness of their counsel. Therefore, the appellate Court appears to have slipped into a deep legal error in this respect and ought to have restored and to decide the appeals of petitioners on merits in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the parties. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petitions are accepted. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. The appellate Court is directed to restore the appeals to their original numbers and decide them on merits in accordance with law. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the appellate Court on 25.4.2014 for further proceedings in the matter. ---------0.B.S.0------------