This revision against the judgment of the Addl. Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 13.10.59 involves a simple question whether the absence of the applicant on certain date in the Court of the Settlement Officer Jaipur was due to any sufficient cause or not. Both the learned Settlement Officer and the learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner have held it not to be so. 2. The facts in brief are that the applicant preferred an appeal to the Settlement Officer against the decision of the Asstt. Settlement Officer dated 14.4.58 ordering the striking of the name of the applicant from the disputed land in the Settlement records. This appeal was dismissed in default on 15.7.1958, both the applicant as well as his counsel having failed to put up an appearance. The applicant submitted an application for the restoration of the appeal on the ground that on that date he had another case fixed in the court of the Nazim, Khetri and had gone to attend it. The words are: vihykUV rk- 15.7.58 dks eqdke [ksrM+h esa iskh ij gkftj FkkA "This application was itself dismissed in default once, but was restored subsequently. Before its having been dismissed in default, an objection had been raised on behalf of the opposite party that the affidavit produced by the applicant in support of his application had not been verified by any oath commissioner and the case had been adjourned on costs for enabling the applicant to fulfil that requirement. When the application was restored, the original application was taken for hearing again on 30.6.50. In the affidavit produced by the applicant duly verified by the oath commissioner, he through mistake or otherwise entered 15.1.1958 instead of15.7.58; and the opposite party produced a copy of the order-sheet of the court of the S.D.O. Khetri dated 15.7.58 in which the presence of applicant had not been mentioned and on the other hand it had been stated that he was not present nor the summons had been received back after service. The learned Settlement Officer, therefore, holding that the affidavit was wrong because of the entry of wrong date therein and that the applicant was not found to have been present in the Court of the S.D.O. Khetri on the date fixed, 15.7.58, dismissed the application for restoration of appeal with the observation that ,slk dksbZ dkj.k ugha fn[krk fd cktnk;jh ij fopkj fd;k tkosaA "In appeal, the learned Addl. Settlement Commissioner, before whom the argument was that date 15.1.58 had been entered for 15.7.58 in the affidavit only by mistake committed through oversight, having been influenced by the arguments on behalf of the apposite party that even if the mistake in the date in the affidavit be taken to be due to oversight and it be also taken that the applicant had gone to the court of the S.D.O. Khetri on 15.7.58, it was his duty to make arrangements for his appearance before the learned Settlement Officer Jaipur, dismissed it with the simple observation il bl tqeyk okD;kr dks eísutj j[krs gq, equkflc ;gh ekywe gksrk gS fd tks QSlyk vnkyr ekrgr ls gqvk og nq:Lr gS] blesa rjehe dh t:jr ugha gSA It is under these circumstances that the present revision has been preferred. The grounds! taken by the applicant in support of this revision are that the provision of law applicable to the application for restoration should have been liberally construed and the applicant not panalized only because of some in consistencies having been crept in due to defective drafting by his counsel and the application should have been granted keeping in view the principles of equity, justice and good conscience, which all favour the restoration and not rejection. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having examined the record given our earnest consideration to the matter. The point for determination is whether the learned lower courts had the right to believe or dis-believe the evidence produced before them in support of the application for restoration and whether any failure in the exercise of their jurisdiction has been committed by them in doing so or not. There cannot be two opinions on the point that it was entirely within the jurisdiction of the learned Settlement Officer and the learned lower appellate court to believe or dis-believe the evidence produced by the parties before them. There cannot be two opinions on the point that it was entirely within the jurisdiction of the learned Settlement Officer and the learned lower appellate court to believe or dis-believe the evidence produced by the parties before them. The appreciation of the evidence as well as the inference drawn from it was also within their competence. Arriving at any decision on the basis thereof did also similarly fall absolutely within their competence. A revising court cannot question all this. But it can certainly question the manner in which the decision has been arrived at. The regularity and illegality thereof can also be looked into by the court of revision, and, it can interfere with it if found to be justified. We have stated above in detail that on 30.6.59, the date on which the application for restoration was taken up after its having been restored, the learned S.O. did not ask the applicant as to how he explained the discrepancy in date in the affidavit as well as his absence on 15.7.1958 in the Court of the S.D.O. Khetri or at any rate the absence of the recording of his presence in the order-sheet of that court. The courts are meant to administer justice and not to impose a school-masters discipline over the parties and penalize them. When the date 30.5.59 has been fixed for the production of duly verified affidavit (which it should have been taken to have been fixed in view of the order dated 30.10.1958), the learned Settlement Officer should have asked the opposite party to give his reply thereto and if the application was contested by him, an opportunity should have been given to the applicant to prove his contention. It is only after his failing to prove so that an order should have been passed against him. The learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that no such ground has been taken for revision by the | applicant and we cannot look into this aspect of this case But once the matter is brought before us in revision, our powers u/s 84 of the Raj. Land Revenue Act, cannot be hampered by these considerations. The revision is the right of the court and not right of the party. Land Revenue Act, cannot be hampered by these considerations. The revision is the right of the court and not right of the party. This power may be exercisable only when no appeal lies to the Board and it appears that the subordinate court has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise his jurisdiction so vested or has acted in the exercise thereof illegally or with material irregularity. But once any of these ailments is established the power of the Board to pass such orders as it thinks fit is un-limited. There is prescribed a definite procedure for hearing all applications. They cannot be decided in a haphazard or in an arbitrary manner. An affidavit required to be produced in support of an application for restoration only in order to enable the Court to start action thereon. That by itself is no proof. Nor could the affidavit produced in the present case by the applicant be taken to be meant one to do away with the necessity of tendering any other formal evidence in support of his contention. A matter can be proved by affidavit or counter-affidavit only when it is specially directed to be so proved by the Court under the provisions of order XIX Rule 1 for sufficient reasons and on such conditions as the court thinks reasonable. No such direction can be given if it appears to the court that any party bonafide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination and that such witness can be produced. This point has been examined by the Board in Uma Vallabh Vs. Ghisa, 1960 R. R. D. 5, to which one of us was a party, It has been observed there, "Unless and until an affidavit had been filed under such specific order of the court, a fact cannot be taken as proved by filing an affidavit alone. The simple reason is that an affidavit filed in support of an application is no evidence. Such affidavit is intended only to satisfy the court prima facie that the allegations in the application are true so that the court may issue a notice to the opposite party. If the opposite party does not contest the allegations in the application, there may be no need to adduce any evidence. But if the opposite party challenges it, the applicant must adduce evidence to prove the application ". If the opposite party does not contest the allegations in the application, there may be no need to adduce any evidence. But if the opposite party challenges it, the applicant must adduce evidence to prove the application ". In A.I.R. 1955 Ajmer/7 it has been held that there must be an application for giving evidence on affidavit and there must be an order for it. In the present case, the learned Settlement Officer, has therefore, committed a great error and, there fore, an illegality in presuming the application of the applicant to have been proved or not proved only on the basis of his affidavit, without letting him have an opportunity of producing an evidence in support of his contention, when the opposite party had been contesting the allegation made therein. In view of the stand that the opposite party had taken in the matter, the parties must have been asked to prove the point at issue and it should have been only thereafter that the final order should have been passed on the application for restoration. The order of the Settlement Officer, and a fortiorari the appellate order, therefore, suffers from illegality in as-much-as it has been passed by not following the prescribed procedure for the trial of such applications. Because of this illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction of by the learned trial court and the failure on the part of the learned appellate court to mend it, we cannot but interfere with this order. Now, the question arises as to what should be the order passed in this revision. We are quite conscious of the fact that these proceedings have been prolonged very much. There is, however, no material on record, nor has the applicant had on opportunity of placing the same, on the basis whereof we can base our judgment. We too would be repeating the same mistake if we disposed off this application finally at this stage. The final disposal can be made in this case only after both the parties have had an opportunity of producing their evidence and have been given a hearing in the matter. Whether the observations of the learned lower appellate court that the applicant must have made arrangement for the prosecution of the application were justified or not can also be decided after that. Whether the observations of the learned lower appellate court that the applicant must have made arrangement for the prosecution of the application were justified or not can also be decided after that. We, therefore, accept this revision, set aside the orders of both the learned lower court and remand the case back to the Settlement Officer for letting the parties have an opportunity of producing their evidence and giving them a hearing and then decide the application for restoration on merits in accordance with law, keeping in view the observation made above.