Restoration relates back for settlement scheme declarations, so later restoration cannot by itself defeat pending appeal status.

Where an appeal is restored, the restoration relates back to the original proceedings, so the appeal is treated as pending on the relevant date for a declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. On that footing, rejection of the declaration merely because the restoration order was passed later was unsustainable, and the declaration had to be examined on merits. The operative effect was that the impugned endorsement was set aside and reconsideration in accordance with law was required.

---

---

Issues: Whether rejection of the declaration under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme was sustainable when the appeal had been restored subsequently and the restoration was to operate retrospectively.

Analysis: The declaration had been filed when proceedings relating to recall of the ex parte order were pending. The appeal was later restored to its original file. On restoration, the earlier position stood revived and the subsequent restoration related back to the date of the declaration. Since the pendency of the appeal was thus to be treated as existing on the relevant date, the declaration could not be rejected merely because the restoration order was passed later.

Conclusion: The rejection of the declaration was unsustainable and the declaration had to be examined on merits.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, the impugned endorsement was set aside, and the respondents were required to reconsider the declaration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appeal is restored, the restoration relates back to the date of the original proceedings, and a declaration under the settlement scheme must be considered on the footing that the appeal was pending on that date.

---