JUDGMENT : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2 OF 2022: 1. We have heard Mr. Deep Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Hriday Buch, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents and Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State. 2. Considering the averments made in the application, we are of the considered view that delay of 80 days occurred in filing the restoration application deserves to be condoned and it is accordingly condoned. Civil Application No. 2 of 2022 is allowed. ORDER IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2022: 3. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and accepting the reasons assigned in the application, the peremptory order passed on 14.07.2022 qua this appeal is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original status on file. Misc. Civil Application No. 1 of 2022 is allowed. ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 228 OF 2022: 4. The center of controversy which revolved before the authorities and before the learned Single Judge relates to revenue entry in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 514/A/1 admeasuring 6,25,153 sdq. mtrs. of village Chharawadi, Taluka City, Ahmedabad. On account of cancellation of revenue entry No. 1844 passed in the year 1980 having been set aside by the orders dated 07.01.2015, 28.02.2009 and 31.03.2008 passed by the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Collector, Ahmedabad and Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad City, respectively, respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.5 were before this Court by challenging the said action in Special Civil Application No. 9067 of 2015. Learned Single Judge having considered the rival contentions in conclusion opined to the following effect: “6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material question, the short question which falls for consideration is whether the authorities below i.e. Deputy Collector, Collector and SSRD were justified in quashing and setting aside the order cancelling the revenue Entry No. 1844 passed in the year 1980 after a period of 25 years. 7. The forefathers of the petitioners were granted “Ek Saali” lease in the year 1945-46, which was made permanent by order dated 18th October, 1954 and subsequently vide order dated 4th January, 1955 the land in question was granted to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on certain terms and conditions. *** *** *** 14. 7. The forefathers of the petitioners were granted “Ek Saali” lease in the year 1945-46, which was made permanent by order dated 18th October, 1954 and subsequently vide order dated 4th January, 1955 the land in question was granted to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on certain terms and conditions. *** *** *** 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances the respondent authorities have committed an error by quashing and setting aside the order dated 30th July, 1980 cancelling the revenue entry No. 1844 in favour of the respondent No. 6-Municipal Corporation in view of the undisputed fact that basis of such entry being Grant of land vide order dated 1st April, 1955 already stood cancelled vide order dated 9th March, 1971 and such order was never revoked by the State Government. Therefore, in such circumstances, no interference could have been made by the respondent No. 4-Deputy Collector by entertaining the appeal filed by the respondent corporation after the period of 25 years that too without passing any order for condonation of delay and subsequent orders passed by the Collector and SSRD are also therefore required to be quashed and set aside.” 5. The apprehension of Mr. Deep D. Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the suits which have been filed by both parties is being adjudicated by the jurisdictional Civil Court and there is likelihood of this order being used against the appellant. It is also his apprehension that observations made under the order of the learned Single Judge is likely to cause prejudice to the appellant in the said suit if the said observations are taken note of by the learned trial Judge. 6. Having regard to the said apprehensions, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if learned trial Judge adjudicating the suits namely Regular Civil Suit No. 700 of 2005 and Regular Civil Suit No. 2011 of 2005 is directed to adjudicate the said suits independently without being influenced by any observations made by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 07.05.2021 passed in Special Civil Application No. 9067 of 2015. We also make it clear that observations made by the learned Single Judge has to be understood as confined for the purposes of adjudicating the claim relating to revenue entry only and as such, we direct the learned trial Judge shall proceed to adjudicate the suit on merits and in accordance with law without being influenced by any of these observations. 7. It is also necessary to note at this juncture itself that suit has been pending for the past seventeen years and now it seems to have been posted for recording of the evidence. As such, a direction requires to be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the said suit expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of three months from today subject to both parties cooperating with the trial Court. It is also made clear that in the event of either of parties were to seek for an adjournment without any justifiable cause to the satisfaction of the trial Judge, said trial Judge would be at liberty to impose such costs not exceeding Rs. 5,000/- per adjournment. It is also made clear that learned trial Judge shall send a quarterly report to the Registrar General about the progress of the case which shall be placed on the file of this case. 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application/s if any stands consigned to records.