JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J.- This petition is directed against the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 8-3-79 by which the revision filed by the contesting respondents was allowed. 2. This case has got a chequered history. It appears that a suit under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was filed in the year 1953 by Ram Bali Plaintiff respondent against Mst. Dhanraji, the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte by the order of the trial court on 16-9-53. According to the case of the respondents a restoration application was filed on 12-10-53 which was dismissed on 23-11-53. But according to the learned counsel for the petitioner an application for restoration was moved on 4-5-77 for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 16-9-53. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner an application for condonation of delay was also moved. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial court by its order dated 15-11-77 set aside the order dated 16-9-53 and also abated the suit under Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act as the Consolidation proceedings had started. A restoration application was filed on 30-1-1978 on behalf of the plaintiff which was dismissed by the order of the trial court on 14-4-78. A revision was filed on behalf of the plaintiff respondent against the order of the trial court dated 14-4-78 and the Additional Commissioner made a recommendation to the Board of Revenue tor setting aside the orders of the trial court dated 14-4-78 and 15-11-77. The Board of Revenue by order dated 8-3-79 accepted the recommendations made by the Commissioner. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Board of Revenue in this Court. 4. It has been contended that the subject matter of the revision was only the order of the trial court dated 14-4-78 and the order dated 15-11-77 was not the subject matter of the revision, therefore, the Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the trial court dated 15-11-77 and his application dated 4-5-77. According to him his objection which was filed before the Additional Commissioner was not placed before the Board of Revenue and therefore, the order dated 8-3-79 is also bad. 5. According to him his objection which was filed before the Additional Commissioner was not placed before the Board of Revenue and therefore, the order dated 8-3-79 is also bad. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out from any document to show that the trial court order dated 15-11-77 was also the subject matter of the revision but from the order of the Additional Commissioner. It is quite clear that the revision was directed only against the order of 14-4-78, therefore, that order alone was the subject matter of the revision. About the fact whether an objection against the recommendations of the Additional Commissioner was filed before the order of the Board of Revenue was passed is a matter of controversy. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner an objection and his vakalatnama was also filed before the order of the Board of Revenue was passed. According to the learned counsel for the respondent no such objection and Vakalatnama was filed before the impugned order of the Board of Revenue was passed. Whatsoever the case may be the Board of Revenue should have considered all these facts in the light of the previous history of that case. In this case where the ex parte orders are being passed from the very beginning in favour of one party or other and there was no stage for any authority to hear both the parties and pass a final order after hearing the parties. From the facts of the case it appears that both the parties have not been heard together at any stage by any court, therefore, the acceptance of recommendations made by the Additional Commissioner without applying his own mind was wholly unjust order. Such an order cannot be upheld. 7. In view that has been discussed above, the Board of Revenue has committed an error and, therefore, his order deserves to be quashed. 8. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 8-3-79 is quashed. The Board of Revenue is directed to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations made above. 9. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.