JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revisionist against the order of the Additional of The petitioner date 7-8-1985 for the restoration of the revision and for the withdrawal of the order dated 18-7-1983 was dismissed. 2. Opposite party is absent in spite of sufficient notice. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. 3. It is proved from the record that the revision filed before the Additional commissioner on 28-9-1981 remained undated and it was dismissed for default on 18-7-1983. The learned Additional Commissioner rejected the application or restoration mainly on the ground that the revisionist had not filed any notice for himself so that it could be sent to him. 4. In my opinion the finding recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner is not only funny but is against all cannons of justice. When the court had kept the revision undated it was its own duty to inform the revisionist about the date when the case was to be taken up. There was no question of any notice having been filed for himself by the revisionist unless he was ordered to do so. The record does not indicate that the revisionist had ever been asked to file any notice for himself. There was, therefore, no fault on h part of the revisionist if he had not deposited the notice to be served upon him when the Case was to be listed. It is, therefore, proved from the record that the revision was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner without any notice having been served upon the revisionist and he could not get any information of the date or of the dismissal of the revision. His application for restoration was, therefore, perfectly within limitation and was based on sufficient ground. This application deserved to have been allowed and could not be dismissed merely on the ground that the learned Additional commissioner neither went through the record properly nor did he care to peruse the relevant law on the subject and he dismissed the application for restoration merely on flimsy grounds. There cannot be a more glaring example of the massacre of justice. The learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, miserably failed to exercise his jurisdiction properly and passed an order which has caused against the miscarriage of justice. Both of his orders dated 18-7-1983 and 16-11-1985, therefore, deserve to be struck down and the revision deserves to be restored. 5. There cannot be a more glaring example of the massacre of justice. The learned Additional Commissioner, therefore, miserably failed to exercise his jurisdiction properly and passed an order which has caused against the miscarriage of justice. Both of his orders dated 18-7-1983 and 16-11-1985, therefore, deserve to be struck down and the revision deserves to be restored. 5. In view of the above discussion this revision is allowed and the order passed by Additional Commissioner dated 18-7-1983 and 16-11-1985 are set aside and the application for restoration dated 7-8-1985 is allowed. The revision is restored and is remanded back to the Additional Commissioner for disposing it of according to law after hearing both the parties.