JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgments of the revisional court dated 1-8-1973 and 30-1-1973. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the Assistant Consolidation Officer decided the claims of the parties through his order contained in Annexure VIII. Again that order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was allowed by the appellate authority through its judgment dated 9-6-1972. Against the order of the appellate authority the contesting opposite party had preferred a revision petition which was allowed by the revisional court through its judgment dated 30-1-1973. Thereafter an application for setting aside the order dated 30-1-1973 was filed which was dismissed through the order dated 1-8-1973. Aggrieved by the orders of the revisional court, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the order dated 30-1-1973 passed by the revisional court is patently erroneous and deserves to be quashed. Even if the aforesaid order has been rightly confirmed by the revisional court through its order dated 1-8-1973, the latter order would fall through if the petitioner succeeds in challenging the order dated 30-1-1973. 4. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the revisional court has not met with the reasonings of the appellate authority whereby the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer was set aside and the matter was sent to the Consolidation Officer for probing into the controversy and deciding the claim of the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has tried to support the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 30-1-1973. According to him the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was in favour of a co-tenure holder who was not present, therefore, the revisional court was fully justified in setting aside the order of the appellate authority and restoring the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. According to him the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was in favour of a co-tenure holder who was not present, therefore, the revisional court was fully justified in setting aside the order of the appellate authority and restoring the order passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer. It has also been stressed that the appellate authority had condoned the delay in preferring the appeal without adverting to the objections filed by the contesting opposite parties, therefore, the impugned order of the appellate authority was bad in law and it was rightly set aside by the revisional court and, therefore, it is net a fit case where interference should be made with the impunded judgment of the revisional court dated 30-1-1973. 6. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is sufficient to observe that the Assistant Consolidation Officer could decide the claims of the parties only on the basis of a conciliation between them. When a party is absent and according to para. 25 (a) the Assistant Consolidation Officer could neither decide the claims of the parties in default or ex parte, it was hot proper for the revisional court to interfere with the order of the appellate authority on the ground that the order passed by the A.C.O. was in favour of a party which was absent. To my mind when a party is absent before the A.C.O, the A.C.O. could not proceed ex parte and he should have referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer for decision on merits. The ground on which the revisional court has interfered with the order of the appellate authority appears to me patently erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. No doubt the appellate authority condoned the delay without adverting to the objections filed by the contesting opposite parties before the appellate authority, since in the revision petition there is no discussion on the question of limitation involved in preferring the appeal by the petitioner it is proper for the revisional court to examine the claim of the parties on the question of limitation involved in preferring the appeal by the petitioners against the order of the A.C.O. before the appellate authority. 8. For the foregoing discussions, the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 30-1-1973 appears to me patently erroneous and deserves to be quashed. 8. For the foregoing discussions, the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 30-1-1973 appears to me patently erroneous and deserves to be quashed. When that order is quashed the last order passed by the revisional court on 1-8-1973 will fall through. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 30-1-1973 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties in the revision petition hereafter. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.