JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - The appellants filed a suit under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for the ejectment of defendant-respondent Raghunath Singh. Defendant No. 4 to the suit was Anrudh Singh who was the brother of Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3. Defendant No. 5 was the Gaon Sabha and the defendant No. 6 was the State of Uttar Pradesh. Raghunath Singh alone filed written statement in the suit. The other defendants did not appear to contest the claim. September 22, 1961 was fixed for the framing of the issues. When the case was called out on that date none of the parties was present. The Judicial officer dismissed the suit for default of appearance of the parties. 2. The plaintiffs filed an application for the setting aside of the ex parte order on October 23, 1961. This application was dismissed by the Judicial officer on December 28, 1961 on the ground that the plaintiffs had not complied with the order dated December 11, 1961. 3. It appears that the Judicial officer had directed issue of notice of the restoration application on the defendants. The pro forma defendant Anrudh Singh and the Gaon Sabha and the State Government had not been served. On December 11, 1961 the court had ordered that notices be served upon these defendants by publication in newspapers. There seems to have been some misunderstanding due to which the plaintiff filed summons as well as process fee for sending notices to these defendants by registered post. When the case was called out on December 28, 1961 the Judicial officer felt that since no steps had been taken to serve the unserved defendants by publication his previous order had not been complied with, and so the restoration application was dismissed. 4. Aggrieved the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The Additional Commissioner took the view that the dismissal of the suit was under Order 9, Rule 3, C.P.C. and so an application under Rule 4 for the setting aside of that order did not require service of summons on the other side. The Judicial officer ought to have proceeded to consider the merits of the application straight away. In this view, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Judicial officer was set aside. Raghunath Singh went up in revision to the Board of Revenue. The Judicial officer ought to have proceeded to consider the merits of the application straight away. In this view, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Judicial officer was set aside. Raghunath Singh went up in revision to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue held that since the dismissal of the suit was under Rule 3 of Order 9 the order passed on the restoration application under Rule 4 was not appealable. As no appeal lay to the Additional Commissioner his order was without jurisdiction. The Board quashed the order of the Additional Commissioner. The Board did not look into the merits of the case even in the exercise of its revisional powers. Aggrieved the plaintiff's filed a writ petition. A learned single Judge held that the order of the Judicial officer dismissing the restoration application was not appealable and the Board of Revenue was right in taking that view. He also repealed the submission that the court had no right to pass a dismissal order dated September 27, 1961 because that was a date for the framing of issues only on the view that the court had the right to dismiss a suit on any date fixed for hearing. 5. Aggrieved the plaintiffs have come up in appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that when a suit is dismissed under Order 9, Rule 3, C.P.C., that order can be set aside by the court on an application under Rule 4 without hearing the other side. In support reliance is placed upon a Division Bench decision of this court in Lalit Singh v. Pyre Lal, A.I.R. 1956 All. 714. In that case the Board of Revenue had set aside in order of dismissal at the application of only one of the parties without issuing notice of hearing to other parties. This court held that the procedure followed by the Board of Revenue called for no interference because there is no authority which lays down that when both the parties are absent and an order is made against one the court has no jurisdiction to set that aside without hearing the other party. The Bench observed: "Our attention has been drawn to provisions of Order 9, Rules 9 and 14 which provide that no order made under Rule 8 and 13 of the order shall be set aside without notice to the other side. The Bench observed: "Our attention has been drawn to provisions of Order 9, Rules 9 and 14 which provide that no order made under Rule 8 and 13 of the order shall be set aside without notice to the other side. But these rules apply to a case in which an order has been passed against one party in absence of the other. On the other hand Rule 4 of the same order provides that where a suit has been dismissed because neither party had appeared when it was called on for hearing the order may be set aside without notice." 7. In view of the law laid down by this decision it must be held that the Judicial officer had no jurisdiction to dismiss the application for restoration on the ground that the applicant had not taken adequate steps to serve the defendants. In law, it was not necessary to hear the other side and so the dismissal of the application on that ground was without jurisdiction. 8. It has been seen that defendant No. 3 Raghunath Singh, the only contesting party, had notice of the restoration application. He was present in court through counsel. The three defendants, who were not served, were Anrudh Singh, pro forma defendant, and the Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. It is rather strange that the Judicial officer directed service of summons on the Gaon Sabha and the State through publication. It has been stated the plaintiff had filed process fee and summons for service of summons on these defendants by registered post. The same had been accepted by the Judicial officer and the notices by registered post had been sent out. Service was effected on Anrudh Singh by his refusal to take the summons. The Gaon Sabha was also served but somehow only the State Government remained unserved. Under these circumstances the order dismissing the restoration application for non-compliance with the earlier order of December 11, 1961 was too drastic an order. The court should have granted some time to the plaintiffs to take adequate steps even if it was inclined that the service of summons of the restoration application on the defendants was feasible. 9. Considering all the circumstances of the case we feel that the dismissal of the restoration application was in law not justified. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. 9. Considering all the circumstances of the case we feel that the dismissal of the restoration application was in law not justified. 10. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Board of Revenue is quashed and that of the Additional Commissioner and the Judicial officer are quashed. The case is writ back to the Judicial officer concerned for decision of the restoration application on its merits. The appellants shall be entitled to their costs.