JUDGMENT Malay Kumar Basu, J.: This is an application for recalling of the order of this Court dated 5.12.2000 under which the revisional application being C.O. 1746/2000 was dismissed not for default merely but on merits in the absence of the petitioner and after hearing the Ld. Advocate for the O.P. only. Mr. Bhunia appearing on behalf of the petitioner now submits that on the date of hearing, his client or his counsel could not appeal at the time when the matter was taken up for hearing having been misled by the wrong number of the Revisional Application put in the cause list of that date and in the result the matter having been heard in his absence and having been disposed of on merits his client has been subjected to grave prejudice by the order of dismissal and he has got a number of legal questions to be raised in this revisional application before this Court and in view of all this he ha" filed this application praying that the matter may be restored and the impugned order may be recalled. 2. Mrs. Mukherjee appearing on behalf of the O.P. submits that such a prayer is misconceived in the eye of law since a revisional application can never be dismissed for default. According to her, it is always to be disposed of on merits. In support of this contention, she refers to a decision reported in AIR 1993 SC 540 wherein the Apex Court disapproved of an order of dismissal of a revisional application on the ground that the applicant failed to deposit rent by a specified time. It has been held therein that revision petition once admitted is to be disposed of on merits and dismissal thereof on the ground that the appellant had not deposited rent is illegal. Mrs. Mukherjee contends that therefore there being no scope for a revision petition being dismissed on merit, there should not be any scope for recalling the same treating it as an order of dismissal for default. 3. Mr. Bhunia on the other hand draws my attention to an earlier decision of this Court reported in AIR 1995 Cal. 370 which followed the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 . In the latter it has been held that a party should not suffer for misdemeanour or laches of his Counsel. 3. Mr. Bhunia on the other hand draws my attention to an earlier decision of this Court reported in AIR 1995 Cal. 370 which followed the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 1400 . In the latter it has been held that a party should not suffer for misdemeanour or laches of his Counsel. On the basis of this finding of the Apex Court a Single Bench of this Court in the above mentioned ruling ( AIR 1995 Cal 370 ) has held that in such a circumstance where a suit or proceeding was heard ex parte and disposed of on merits without hearing the petitioner there would not be any doubt that substantial injustice would be caused to the petitioner if in his absence his petition was heard and he or she is not allowed to get an opportunity of making his or her submission on the merits of his or her application. Because, for non-appearance of his or her Ld. Counsel at the time of hearing of the matter he or she should not suffer. Giving careful thought and consideration to the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that there is no scope for holding a different view since the circumstances are almost identical. The ground made out in the instant application is that the Ld. Advocate or his clerk became misled by wrong number of the application that was printed in the Cause List of that date and as a result none of them appeared at the time of hearing of that case. 4: Mr. Bhunia shows me the Cause List of that date and it is found that his submission is factually correct. Mrs. Mukherjee also does not dispute this fact. That being so, it is clear that the absence of the Ld. Counselor his clerk on behalf of the petitioner on the date of hearing was not without justification. 5. Under such circumstances, the revisional application having been declared on merits without hearing the applicant certainly leaves room for raising the question that the petitioner will be subjected to substantial injustice, if he is not given an opportunity to have his say in support of his allegations in the revisional application through his Counsel. In that view of the matter the impugned order disposing of the revisional application on merits should be vacated. 6. In that view of the matter the impugned order disposing of the revisional application on merits should be vacated. 6. In the result the impugned order dated 5.12.2000 be recalled and the revisional application being C.O. No. 1746 of 2000 be restored. Revisional application restored.