L. RATH, J. ( 1 ) THE question raised by the learned counsel for the peti-tioner are the power of an Arbitrator functioning under Section 68 of the orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')to restore a dispute earlier dismissed by him for default and also to direct restoration even in spite of the objection of the petitioner who was defendant to the dispute of his having not received copy of the restoration application. A dispute had been filed by the opposite party No. 4 against the petitioner registered as Dispute Case No. 1 of 1985-86. The dispute was transferred to the opposite party No. 2 for adjudication but on 25-6-1986 the opposite party No. 2 dismissed the dispute for non-prosecution because of non-appearance of the opposite party No 4. Thereafter an applicatipn for resto-ration was filed. Jt is the case of the petitioner that though he filed an objection as in Annexure-2 to the writ petition that unless a copy of (he restoration application was supplied to him it would not be possible on his part to file a rejoinder to it, yet without any orders having been passed thereon, the restoration was allowed by orders passed on 8-10-1986. As against the order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (opposite party No. (3 ). The appeal having been dismissed, the present petition has been filed. ( 2 ) SO far as the first question regarding absence of power in the arbitrator to restore is concerned, Rule 79 (3), of the Orissa Co-operative societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') directly answers it in saying that when a case is dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiff, he may apply to set aside the dismissal on showing sufficient cause for his previous non-appearance. The power hence was undoubtedly available to the opposite party No. 2 to entertain the petition for restoration and decide upon it. This submission of the learned counsel hence must be rejected. ( 3 ) BUT so far as the second submission is concerned, we find it to have substance. No appearance has been made On behalf of the opposite party No. 4 in spite of notice. The opposite party Nos 1, 2 and 3 have also not filed any counter affidavit. This submission of the learned counsel hence must be rejected. ( 3 ) BUT so far as the second submission is concerned, we find it to have substance. No appearance has been made On behalf of the opposite party No. 4 in spite of notice. The opposite party Nos 1, 2 and 3 have also not filed any counter affidavit. The petitioner's avernment in the writ petition that he had not been served with a copy of the restoration petition hence is to be accepted as correct. The question of restoration was not available to be considered by the opposite party No 2 in the absence of a copy of the petition having bren served on the petitioner. The petitioner had an inherent right to oppose restoration and to establish, if he could that the grounds pleaded for restoration were either not available or were not bona fide. Since he has been deprived of the opportunity, we find the impugned orders in Annexures 3 and 4 to be not sustainable and quash the same. ( 4 ) IN the result, the writ petition succeeds. The matter shall go back to the opposite party No. 2 for fresh adjudication on the question of restora-tion after supplying a copy of the restoration petition to the petitioner. No costs. Petition allowed. .