JUDGMENT J.K. Tandon, J. - This is a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution and arises out of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Utraula on a revision preferred before him and u/s 89 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act. The Petitioners were prosecuted for offences u/s s. 309/448 and 323, IPC before the Nyaya Panchayat of Ghari Khondara in Tahsil Utraula which while convicting them sentenced them to a fine aggregating to three hundred rupees. Against their conviction the Petitioners went up in revision under the above section to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who issued notice thereon and appointed 18-5-1959 for hearing. On this date he dismissed the revision in default on the ground that the Petitioners were absent. The Petitioners the same day applied to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for setting aside the dismissal in default but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate refused to entertain the prayer on the ground that the Panchayat Raj Act made no provision for the setting aside of ex parte dismissals of revisions filed u/s 89. The present petition was then moved for setting aside the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 2. It will be necessary to state certain facts at the very outset. The order of the Nyaya Panchayat sought to be revised was made on 9th April, 1959. The date on which the revision application was made to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate u/s 89 is not very clear from the record but it was appointed for hearing on the 18th of May, 1959. As earlier noticed it was dismissed in default on that date but immediately after, i.e. on the same date the applicants made another application asking the ex parte dismissal to be set aside. 3. The Panchayat Raj Act or the rules framed thereunder do not appear to contain any express provision for setting aside dismissals in default of revisions preferred u/s 89 of the Act. In the absence of such a provision the Learned Counsel for the Respondents has claimed that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was a correct order. Revisional jurisdiction is by nature supervisory jurisdiction. In the absence of such a provision the Learned Counsel for the Respondents has claimed that the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was a correct order. Revisional jurisdiction is by nature supervisory jurisdiction. Where, therefore, the authority empowered to revise any order has been moved, if a period of limitation is prescribed therefor within the period so prescribed, and such authority has entertained the revision a duty is cast upon it to judge whether the material irregularity said to have occurred does in fact exist or not. A dismissal in default of an application for revision, though in exceptional cases, it may be made, is a very extraordinary order. Therefore the revising authority where it does not dispose of the revision though entertained by it on merits will be entitled to consider it on merits. It may do so of its own motion or when it is moved by the party aggrieved. 4. In the instant case the facts are stronger still. The revision application was dismissed for default on the 18th of May, 1959. On the same date an application for restoration was moved and the period of sixty days within which a party is entitled to apply for revision u/s 89 of the Act had not expired by this date. The restoration application could under the circumstances be treated as a fresh application also for revision. 5. Upon the facts also it cannot be said that the Petitioners were guilty of a conduct which disentitled them from the indulgence asked by them. They were present in the court compound on the date of hearing. Unfortunately they happened to be in attendance not at the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Utraula where the revision was pending but in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate Tarabganj which, I am told, is situate within the same premises. 6. Therefore having regard to everyone of these facts the order passed by the court below refusing to set aside the dismissal in default and to consider the revision on merits amounts to a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the law. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, dated 24-12-1959 is set aside and the said Magistrate is directed to hear the revision application on merits in accordance with law. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Utraula, dated 24-12-1959 is set aside and the said Magistrate is directed to hear the revision application on merits in accordance with law. The costs of this petition shall abide the result of the revision application in the court below.