JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. - Aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court, dated 30-5-1988, the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The main grievance of the Petitioners is that the consolidation authorities are not hearing the petitioners and not deciding their claim on merits. There is a danger of the petitioners' claim being prejudiced. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners I am not satisfied with his submission. Perusal of the impugned order of the revisional Court dated 30-5-1988 indicates that the revisional Court has asked the appellate authority to decide the claim of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the observations made by this Court in its order dated 23-7-1981 in Writ No. 7689 of 1981. I am sure that if the petitioners co-operate with the appellate authority and lead necessary evidence, the appellate authority shall decide the claim of the petitioners on merits without indulging into any technicality. The admission of this writ petition would entail unnecessary delay and it is only to shorten delay that the revisional Courts has observed that the appellate authority should comply with the directions of this Court in its order dated 23-7-81 and decide the claims of the parties on merits. To ray mind, by the impugned judgment substantial justice has been done between the parties and it is not a fit case wherein any interference should be made with the impugned judgment at this stage. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has emphasised that by the impugned judgment the restoration matter has been sent back to the S.O.C. for redetermination. No doubt, certain observations are to that effect but if the impugned judgment is read as a whole it would be inferred that the order of the revisional Court is that the appellate authority should decide the claims of the parties after giving reasonable opportunity to them. In this view of the matter, I am sure that the appellate authority shall not indulge into technicalities and shall decide the claims of the parties on merits after giving them reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence before itself. In this view of the matter, I am sure that the appellate authority shall not indulge into technicalities and shall decide the claims of the parties on merits after giving them reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence before itself. The appellate authority would express itself not only on the question of restoration but also on the merits of the claims put favoured by the parties after giving them reasonable opportunity to lead evidence before itself so that the litigation between the parties may be shortened. It is regrettable that the matter is lingering from the year 1981 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter is only with regard to restoration of the case. It is necessary to observe that here after the appellate authority shall decide the claims of the parties giving them reasonable opportunity to lead evidence before itself regarding merits of their claim. The appellate authority may redetermine the question of restoration if it so likes or it may adhere to its observations made in the judgment dated 26-3-1984 which was the subject matter before the revisional Court which has emphasised to decide the claims of the parties on merits. 5. With the above observations this writ petition is finally disposed of.