JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, M. - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner II, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 27.7.83 whereby he had recommended that the order of the Tahsildar, Mawana dated 9.2.82 through which the order dated 27.2.78 passed by him earlier was recalled be set aside being illegal and without jurisdiction. 2. The facts of the case in a nut-shell are that on the report of the lekhpal proceedings under Rule 115-C and under section 122-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 were commenced against opposite parties Naipal Singh and Jaipal Singh. A notice in Form 49-K was issued to them upon which they made an objection that they had taken the land in dispute from the Gaon Sabha on Theka and had been continuing in possession for two years as asami and that they should be declared sirdars thereof. The lekhpal was examined and a date for the evidence of the opposite party was fixed. On that date they did not produce any oral evidence but merely filed a receipt issued in their favour by the Pradhan for Rs. 30 concerning the disputed land for a period of one year i.e. 1381 fasli. They gave an application also stating that they had taken the land as asami in 1973 for a period of one year and they had relinquished their possession of their own sweet will and were no longer occupying the land. 3. The learned Tahsildar rejected the defence version and passed an order for ejectment and damages against the opposite party vide his order dated 27.2.1978. On 2.12.81 the opposite party made an application to the Tahsildar under section 151, C.P.C. that the order dated 27.2.78 had been made against them ex parte as they had not been heard and that the same should be withdrawn and the case be reheard on merits. This application was allowed by the Tahsildar by his order dated 9.2.82 and the order, passed earlier on 27.2.78 was set aside and the notice in Form 49-K was also withdrawn and the case was dismissed on the ground that the opposite parties had relinquished their possession. This order was challenged in revision by the State which has come up before this court on reference with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that the order of the Tahsildar dated 9.2.82 is beyond jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. 4. This order was challenged in revision by the State which has come up before this court on reference with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that the order of the Tahsildar dated 9.2.82 is beyond jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. The learned D.G.C. (R) argued that the contention of the opposite parties that the case had been decided ex parte against them is wrong because they had not only filed objection but had tendered R-9 their evidence also after the evidence of the State had been finished. At the stage of their own evidence if the opposite party did not produce any oral evidence and relied merely on an application and the receipt allegedly issued by the Gaon Sabha that would not mean that they had been deprived of their right of tendering their evidence. Consequently even if they did not turn up for arguments on the next date fixed for the same it would not lead to mean that the order passed against them was ex parte. He contended that such order of the Tahsildar passed on 27.2.1978 was on merits and, therefore, it could not be set aside either through review or through restoration proceedings. The learned Counsel therefore, supported the reference and submitted that the order of the Tahsildar is wholly without jurisdiction and must be set aside. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the opposite parties were not trespassers because they had entered into a possession on the basis of a theka granted in their favour by Gaon Sabha and hence they could not be ejected through these proceedings. It was further contended that the Tahsildar had jurisdiction to review his own order and, therefore, if he set aside his previous order under section 151, C.P.C. such order cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction. 7. I have carefully gone through both the orders passed by the Tahsildar. The record clearly indicates that the order dated 27.2.78 passed by him was on merits and was not ex parte because it had been delivered after the evidence of both the parties. It is not necessary that arguments must be heard in every case. 7. I have carefully gone through both the orders passed by the Tahsildar. The record clearly indicates that the order dated 27.2.78 passed by him was on merits and was not ex parte because it had been delivered after the evidence of both the parties. It is not necessary that arguments must be heard in every case. As a matter of fact there is no provision for hearing argument but the courts after the evidence of the parties is finished have made a conviction of hearing the arguments. If, therefore, any party does not turn up for submitting its argument before the trial court the court has no option but to decide the case after hearing the arguments of the parties which is present and, therefore, in such event the judgment delivered after hearing the arguments of any one party present would be deemed to be on merit and cannot be called ex parte. No party can be compelled to put forth his argument and the court is required to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence on record as tendered by the parties during the hearing. In such circumstances the order of the Tahsildar dated 27.2.70 even though passed without hearing the arguments of the opposite parties was not ex parte and was on merits and, therefore, it cannot be set aside through restoration proceedings. Now, as regards the provisions of section 151, C.P.C. it was necessary for the opposite parties to have satisfied the court that their evidence had not been considered by the court. Similarly for the purpose of review also it was necessary to have been proved that there was some error apparent on the face of the record or that some new and important matter or evidence had come to light. In the instant case none of the above conditions was satisfied by the opposite parties. Consequently the order dated 27.2.1978 could neither be recalled under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code nor through the restoration and or review proceedings. The theory of the defence and evidence of the opposite parties was thoroughly discussed in the judgment dated 27.2.1978 and no new evidence was produced before the court. In such circumstances the learned Tahsildar was not competent to withdraw his order dated 27.2.1978 and to dismiss the case. His order dated 9.2.1982 was, therefore, definitely without jurisdiction and cannot be maintained. In such circumstances the learned Tahsildar was not competent to withdraw his order dated 27.2.1978 and to dismiss the case. His order dated 9.2.1982 was, therefore, definitely without jurisdiction and cannot be maintained. 8. I, therefore, agree with the recommendation made by the learned Addl. Commissioner and accordingly I allow the revision, accept the reference and set aside the order passed by Tahsildar Mawana dated 9.2.1982.