JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts that bear out controversy are: Jhunna Lal moves an application for mutation under Section 34 Land Revenue Act in Tahsildar's. The case set forth is that Smt. Gulabo has favoured him with a will dated 20.7.85 and as his name may be entered in her place. Proclamation issued. An objection in opposition is lodged by Smt. Anokhi Devi on 10.4.87. She refutes applicant's and has set up her case for succession. Smt. Anokhi Devi moves an application for amendment in objection. This is rejected on 21.4.79. 2. Smt. Anokhi Devi appealed. Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 3.5.89 allows the appeal and rejects Naib Tahsildars. The proceeding came down in Naib Tahsildar's. A date is posted for evidence of Smt, Anokhi Devi's. She is found not present; her counsel is also absent. Naib Tahsildar by his order dated 27.9.89 allows mutation in favour of applicant Jhunna Lal. 3. A restoration application is, then, moved by Smt. Anokhi Devi explaining her absence on the date posted and with a request to set aside order dated 27.9.89. Naib Tahsildar by order dated 27.3.90 sets aside the earlier order of mutation dated 27.9.89. 4. Jhunna Lal is aggrieved. He files a revision in Collector's. Additional Collector by his order dated 10.9.91 dismisses it. So the revision by Jhunna Lal in this court. 5. Heard the counsel for the revisionist on admission. 6. The contention of the counsel is that he was not heard in restoration application and the order dated 27.3.90 is untenable and illegal. On this a deep misapprehension has to be cleared. The counsel for the revisionist submits that in granting the restoration at the instance of applicant Smt. Anokhi Devi, Jhunna Lal whom the original mutation order favours, was not summoned and heard as proviso to Section 201 land Revenue Act makes necessary. My view point is that hearing of Jhunna Lal is not legally compelling as provision to Section 201 never so requires. What the provision says is: "Summon and hear when the order is to be reversed or altered". Importantly, no variation or alteration occurs when merely the original mutation order is set aside. 1972 R.D. 361 HC supports the inference I labour here. What the provision says is: "Summon and hear when the order is to be reversed or altered". Importantly, no variation or alteration occurs when merely the original mutation order is set aside. 1972 R.D. 361 HC supports the inference I labour here. "When an ex parte decree is set aside it cannot be said that the decree has been varied or altered." The reason is that in place of A, B's name is not ordered for entry in relevant records. A will re-participate in mutation when all issues, claims and concerns will be an open question among contestants. A reversal or alteration of original order may or may not (sic) well, it depends be reached. If order is reversed Jhunna Lal will have had his full say. This is in sharp contrast to requirement of Order IX, Rule 13(2) Civil Procedure Code. This requires that no order shall be made in this rule unless notice of the restoration application has been served on the opposite-party. This applies with vigor to law suits only under Z.A. L.R. Act. The conception in Civil Procedure Code cannot be assimilated in Land Revenue Act. Applicant has no right to participate in restoration proceeding. Say, application is granted: proceeding is restored. A has no right under law to lodge an appeal or revision in upper courts, not at all because such an order is interlocutory. 7. Importantly to remember is that restoration proceeding is not a port of the suit; is not a process in development thereof. AIR 1980 Cal 203. This is a separate proceeding: 1984 RD 133. So in evaluating whether case be restored or not the merits of the original order is not to be appraised: 1973 RD 509. Also the application should receive liberal treatment and exposition because the same has no concern with merit: AIR 1964 SC 219. Under Land Revenue Act,the restorationist has to bear the heavy burden to show that original order has resulted in a gross failure of justice. 8. In the above perspective Jhunna Lal is no party at all and has no right to lodge revision petition. In the case here, he has not filed a copy of Tahsildar's dated 27.3.90. The filing of copy dated 27.9.89 is beside the point because mutation order is not here under challenge. 9. The revision petition is not fit enough for admission. Rejected.