JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, M. - This is an application for setting aside order deciding the reference on April 18, 1979 without hearing the applicant Nathu Ram as he was not informed of the place of hearing at Jhansi and he had gone for it to Allahabad and on being informed he had come directly to Jhansi and move this application on April 19, 1979. 2. The revision application was decided according to the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner after hearing learned DGC(R) Jhansi. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned DGC(R) Jhansi. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the applicant that proviso to rule 189 of the Revenue Court Manual requires hearing of both the parties as the applicant had filed objection according to Sub-Rule 2 of Rule 188 of the Revenue Court Manual. It was argued further that as the applicant had gone to Allahabad for attending the case on April 18, 1979 who had no knowledge of the place of hearing at Jhansi, therefore, the revision was decided ex-parte and as he has shown reasonable ground and cause for having been absent and he application was moved supported with affidavit n the next day i.e., on April 19, 1979. His application should be allowed under Section 151, CPC. Reliance was placed on 1978 ALJ 1037, 1971 AWR 823 High Court, 1969 AWR 803 . 5. The learned DGC (Revenue) Jhansi in reply had argued that application under Section 151 was not maintainable as remedy of filing review application was available to the applicant. Reliance has been placed on 1976 RD Vol. II page 239. 6. It is now well settled law per Bahar Uddin v. Gaon Sabha 1976 RD 53 (FB), that a revision application in which reference was made to the Hon'ble Board and objection was filed according to rule 188(2) it was to be decided after hearing both the parties according to the proviso of Rule 189 of the Land Record Manual. This view has been affirmed in 1978 ALJ 1037 by the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, it is clear that the applicant had right to be heard which he could not avail due to the aforementioned circumstances which have not been challenged. 7. This view has been affirmed in 1978 ALJ 1037 by the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, it is clear that the applicant had right to be heard which he could not avail due to the aforementioned circumstances which have not been challenged. 7. The argument of the learned Deputy General Counsel that this application was not maintainable under Sec. 151, CPC as the applicant had the remedy of applying for review as was done in 1976 RD Vol. 2, page 239. This argument is not correct. The applicant cannot be forced to avail the remedy of only applying for review. He can apply under Sec. 151, CPC also which he had done without any delay. In 1971 AWR page 823 it has been laid by Hon'ble High Court that inspite of the fact that order dismissing application under Order IX, Rule 9 of the CPC was appealable application under Sec. 151 of the CPC was maintainable for setting aside order dismissing application under order IX, Rule 9, CPC for default. This ruling applies with full force to application for setting aside ex-parte order in disposing revision applications in which objections are filed after reference is made by Additional Commissioners and almost the same view is retaliated analogously in 1967 AWR page 303. Therefore, this application is allowed under Sec. 151, of the CPC and the ex-parte order dated April 18, 1979 deciding the reference/revision application ex parte is set aside. 8. August 23, 1979 is fixed hearing on merit.