JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - This writ petition has been filed against the levy of large land holdings tax on the petitioner. He had filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which also appears to have been dismissed in default for non-appearance of the revisionist or his counsel on October 7, 1983. The petitioner appears to have moved an application for setting aside the order of dismissal of the revision in default but that application was rejected by means of order dated February 6, 1985. Notice on behalf of opposite parties has been accepted by the Chief Standing Counsel. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the petition itself may be finally disposed of at this stage. 2. I find that the revision was dismissed in default on October 7, 1983 and the application for setting aside the order for dismissal of the revision in default was moved on December 7, 1983 i.e. to say after two months. No doubt there was some delay in filing the application for setting aside the order of dismissal but in the affidavit, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition, reasons have been given by the petitioner [01 his absence. The Board of Revenue has rejected the application for condonation of delay in filing the application as being filed after such delay. It has been observed that the petitioner did not disclose the made of his knowledge of the order passed by the Board of Revenue on October 7, 1983. On the above ground, the application has been rejected. I find that in the affidavit, the petitioner has mentioned that he came to know about the dismissal of revision on the information which was sent from the Board. It has also been averred that the learned counsel, who was engaged by the petitioner, did not inform him about the dismissal of the revision petition nor he attended the court on the date fixed. In the absence of anything contrary to show, it cannot be said that these averments are not correct. In such matters, unless the delay is inordinate, it would always be proper to stress upon deciding the matter on merits. In the absence of anything contrary to show, it cannot be said that these averments are not correct. In such matters, unless the delay is inordinate, it would always be proper to stress upon deciding the matter on merits. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Board of Revenue dismissing the revision in default and the subsequent order rejecting the application for setting aside that order are set aside. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue shall be restored to its original number. The Board of Revenue shall decide the revision on merits after hearing the petitioner. The writ petition, in the result, is a party allowed. However, there would be no orders as to costs.