JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - In this application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders of the Revenue Officer and appellate and revisional authorities (Annexures 1, 5 and 6) in a ceiling surplus proceeding under the Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) 2 Late Bhanuganga Trivuban Dev is the land-holder. Petitioners are his two major married sons separated as such before 26-9-1970. Bhanuganga and petitioners filed three separate returns. Petitioners were treated as separate land-holders and as such their lands were dealt with separately where they were allowed to retain lands within the ceiling area. Bhanuganga with his widow and his daughter was treated to be a family as defined in Section 37 (b) of the Act. Bhanuganga not being satisfied with determination of his ceiling surplus lands approached this Court in By decision dated 21-10-1 81, revisional order was modified and Revenue Officer was directed to include in the enquiry lands located in the urban areas to establish their link with agricultural purposes. Thus, in effect confirmation of the draft statement was vacated as an enquiry is to be made before the draft statement is confirmed. 3. When the proceeding was pending before the Revenue Officer after decision of this Court, Bhanuganga expired on 10-5-1v82. Petitioners, widow of Bhanuganga, their mother and their sister applied to be substituted. Substitution of widow and daughter of Bhanuganga was allowed. Prayer of petitioners Was refused. Enquiry was made by Revenue Officer and draft statement was confirmed with modification. 4. Widow of Bhanugang preferred an appeal against confirmation of the draft statement. After being entertained, it was posted to 28-1 -1986 for receiving records from the Revenue Officer and for examination of the record by Advocate for the appellant. On that day, finding the Advocate for appellant absent, appellate authority perused the record and being of the view that the appeal is a Second Appeal for which there is no provision in the Act, dismissed the appeal. 5. On 29-1-1986, an application for restoration of the appeal was filed asserting that the case was not fixed for hearing to 28-1-1986. 5. On 29-1-1986, an application for restoration of the appeal was filed asserting that the case was not fixed for hearing to 28-1-1986. This application was rejected by the appellate authority on the finding that there is no inherent power vested with statutory appellate authority, Appellant having died in the meantime, petitioners as her legal representatives filed a revision against the order. The same having been" rejected this writ application has been filed. 6. Mr. S. Misra (2), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that revisional order (Annexure-6) is bad in law inasmuch as changed position after death of the original landholder and his widow to give right to petitioners who are their legal representatives has not been taken into consideration. Besides, only question before the revisional authority was whether refusal to restore the appeal on the ground that there is no inherent power to restore the appeal is justified. When petitioners were not heard on merits In appeal, revisional authority ought not to have considered the merits to come to a conclusion that direction of the High Court having been complied with there is no scope for revising the order. As regards error in the appellate order (Annexure-5) Mr. Misra submitted that appellate authority has not taken note of Rule 43 of the Orissa Land Reforms (General) Rules, 1965 made under the Act have not taken note of which makes Order 41, Rule 19 CPC applicable and thus, there is statutory power to restore the appeal. On merits of the application it was stated that appeal was not posted for hearing on the date when it was dismissed in absence of the appellant As regards merit 6f the dismissal on ground that Second Appeal is not maintainable, it was submitted that appeal for second time is not second appeal. An appeal lies against order confirming the draft statement. No sooner draft statement was modified and confirmed, land-holder has a right of appeal. Mr. Misra submitted that if appellant would have opportunity, she could have convinced the appellate authority that lands in urban area were not linked with agricultural purposes and in any case, order of the Revenue Officer who is to link the lands with agricultural purpose has not given any acceptable reason for the said finding. 7. Mr. Misra submitted that if appellant would have opportunity, she could have convinced the appellate authority that lands in urban area were not linked with agricultural purposes and in any case, order of the Revenue Officer who is to link the lands with agricultural purpose has not given any acceptable reason for the said finding. 7. We need not go into the merits of the claim of the landholder in this writ application since the same would require examination of facts. It is, however, clear from the order-sheet in appeal that after the appeal was admitted, it was dismissed on a date on which it was not posted for hearing. While appreciating the zeal of the appellate authority for speedy disposal, we are not able to appreciate the haste for which appellate authority ignored the minimum requirement of natural justice to give opportunity to party for being heard in the matter. When executive officers are given power of adjudication, they should remember the minimum requirement of the adjudicating process. If they forget the same, people will not accept their capacity to adjudicate and confidence of leppoeon the entire executive branch would be shattered. In this case the same has been forgotten. 8. To err is human. When the error was brought to notice of the appellate authority, it should have referred to Rule 43 to examine whether it has power to -restore. Application for restoration was under Order 4 I, Rule 19, CPC . Learned counsel for the appellant ought to have brought to notice of the appellate authority that Order 41, Rule 19, CPC is applicable in view of Rule 43. Submission was made that inherent power is to be exercised. Thus, appellate authority did not get proper advice from the learned counsel for the appellant. We are inclined to come to the conclusion that a party should not suffer on account of deficiency of the- lawyer engaged by her. Rule 43 reads as follows ; "43. Procedure for filing and disposal of appeals under Sub- Section (2) of Section 58--The procedure for filing and disposal of appeals shall be the same as is provided under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-(5 of 1908)." A bare perusal indicates that from the stage of filing till disposal Order 41, CPC is applicable. Procedure for filing and disposal of appeals under Sub- Section (2) of Section 58--The procedure for filing and disposal of appeals shall be the same as is provided under Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-(5 of 1908)." A bare perusal indicates that from the stage of filing till disposal Order 41, CPC is applicable. Therefore, it will be reasonable to come to conclusion that Order 41, Rule 19, CPC, is applicable. When appeal was dismissed for default of non-appearance on a date to which the same was not posted for hearing, it is a sufficient cause for restoration of the appeal. 9. Next question is substitution. It is true that substitution has not been allowed. We, however, find that petitioners are the heirs and legal representatives of their mother. Therefore, they should be substituted. Since petitioners applied for restoration and have also filed this wit application, interest of justice would be best served in case they are accepted as appellants to continue the appeal. Appellate authority shall correct the cause title in that respect treating the petitioners as appellants. 10. In view of our discussion as above :- (i) Annexure-6, the revisional order is quashed. (ii) Appeal after modification of the draft statement would be against the modified confirmation. (iii) Appeal is restored to file. (iv) Petitioners, the two sons of the widow and Bhanugang are to be substituted as appellants. (v) Appeal is to be heard on merits. 11. In the result, writ application is allowed to the extent indicated above. 7here shall be no order as to costs. Writ be issued to opposite party No. 3 only. Final Result : Allowed