JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - Heard Shri W.H. Khan, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri R.C. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents nos. 5 to 9. Both the learned counsel are agreed that this petition may be heard and decided finally at this stage. 2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner claimed share in Khatas nos. 617, 618, 77 and 78 of village Patwan, Pargana Baberu, district Banda. Claim of petitioner was rejected by consolidation officer and settlement officer of consolidation. Aggrieved by the orders of the aforesaid two authorities, the petitioner filed revision. On 27-2-1988 revision was dismissed on merits though in absence of petitioner. Then an application was moved on 29-2-1988 for recalling the order dated 27-2-1988. This application was dismissed on 16-2-1989. The Assistant Director of Consolidation observed in his order that the application for restoration has been moved by pairokar of petitioner and there is no document on record conferring authority on him to move any such application. Then an application was moved by petitioner inviting attention of respondent no. 1 that power of attorney has been filed and is on record which has not been considered by the Assistant Director of Consolidation and the application for restoration has been dismissed. This application was also rejected on 17-2-1988. Aggrieved by these orders this petition has been filed. 3. Assistant Director of consolidation while rejecting application for restoration has mentioned certain dates saying that on the said dates petitioner sought adjournment in the revision. Copy of the order sheet has been filed by petitioner. I have checked the dates. It is true that petitioner sought adjournment on two or three dates but he was not responsible for adjournment of the case on all the dates. It appears that respondent no. 1 was influenced by the past conduct of petitioner while passing the impugned order rejecting restoration application. He also could not take into account power of attorney on record on which basis application was moved by the pairokar of petitioner. As the application for restoration was moved on 29-2-1988, i.e. only one day after, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 28-2-1988 being Sunday, the application was thus filed by the petitioner at the earliest opportunity. He also could not take into account power of attorney on record on which basis application was moved by the pairokar of petitioner. As the application for restoration was moved on 29-2-1988, i.e. only one day after, the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that 28-2-1988 being Sunday, the application was thus filed by the petitioner at the earliest opportunity. The petitioner could not benefit himself in prolonging the revision and even if it was so, for that respondents could be compensated suitably by awarding costs. This court as well as Honble Supreme Court have said in number of cases that effort of the authorities should be to decide the case on merits instead of rejecting the same by ex parte orders on technical grounds. 4. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, interest of justice will be served if petitioner is permitted one more chance before the Assistant Director of consolidation to argue his revision on merits. Learned Counsel for petitioner has given an undertaking on behalf of petitioner that he will not seek any adjournment in the court of Assistant Director of Consolidation and that revision shall be argued by him on the first date of hearing fixed in pursuance of this order. 5. As the respondents have been dragged up to this Court by the petitioner, they arc entitled to be compensated suitably. Petitioner shall pay Rs. 500 as costs to respondents on the first date fixed by the authority concerned. In case of default, petitioner will not be entitled for hearing of the revision under this order. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 17-2-1989, 16-2-1989 and 27-2-1988 are hearby quashed. The revision shall stand restored to its original number and shall be decided after hearing the parties in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority hearing the revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the district. 7. Stay order dated 2-3-1989 shall stand discharged. 8. Copy of this order be given to learned counsel for parties on payment of usual charges within three days.