JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated October 7, 1971, the learned Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision petition against the trial court's order dated September 7, 1971 in a case under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant who appeared late, and have also perused the record. None appeared for the opposite party in spite of due notice. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner has discussed the facts of the case and has concluded that the trial court in refusing to set aside his earlier order dated September 2, 1971 for proceeding ex parte against Pushpdant and another did not commit any irregularity or illegality in the exercise of the jurisdiction. I have gone through the objection filed by the revisionist as well and agree with the view expressed in 1943 R.D. 537 that an order to proceed ex parte neet not be set aside by any formal order of the court as such. Still the insistence of the revisionist to get the order dated September 2, 1971 set aside was not supported by any strong grounds of genuine grievance. 4. There had been only orders to proceed ex parte, once on March 18, 1970 and again on September 2, 1971. In such cases, the absent party loses hearing on the day of absence and cannot claim opportunity of hearing again for the past proceedings unless specifically allowed by the court, but for future hearings, if the party is present again no formal order for participation in hearing is necessary and the court in its discretion would allow such participation unless there are strong grounds to refuse participation in current/future proceedings. 5. The position being as above, the revision decreed has no force or need either. The reference is accepted and the revision petition is rejected, with the understanding that the revisionist would avail opportunity of hearing in future proceedings.