U. K. DHAON, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Shyam Mohan appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 3. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 7. 10. 1991 and the order dated 21. 12. 1992. The brief facts of the case are that the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Consolidation Officer was dismissed in default on 3. 4. 1991 and on 4. 4. 1991 an application for restoration was moved which was allowed by the appellate court and the appeal was restored by the order dated 8. 5. 1991. On the objection preferred by opposite party No. 3, the settlement Officer. Consolidation by the order dated 27. 7. 1991, recalled the order dated 8. 5. 1991 and rejected the application for restoration on the ground that there was no signature either of the counsel or of the appellant. Thereafter, another application was moved for restoration on 27. 7. 1991 which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the order dated 7. 10. 1991. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision which was dismissed by opposite party No. 1 by the order dated 21. 12. 1992. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has approached this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application for restoration was rejected on 27. 7. 1991. on the ground that it was neither signed by the counsel nor by the appellant and as such the subsequent application for restoration which was moved on the same day, i. e. . 27. 7. 1991 ought to have been allowed by the Settlement Officer, consolidation. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 3 submits that there is no illegality in the Impugned order. ( 4 ) I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 3. 4. 1991 and on the next very day, an application for restoration was moved which was allowed by the order dated 8. 5. ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed in default on 3. 4. 1991 and on the next very day, an application for restoration was moved which was allowed by the order dated 8. 5. 1991 and thereafter opposite party No. 3 filed objection and the Settlement officer, Consolidation after hearing the opposite party No. 3 on 27. 7. 1991, recalled his earlier order dated 8. 5. 1991 and rejected the restoration application on the ground that it was neither signed by the appellant nor by his counsel. On 27. 7. 1991, another application for restoration was moved. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation ought to have allowed the application dated 27. 7. 1991. for restoration of the appeal to Its original number. The Settlement Officer, consolidation has closed the door for the petitioner for all times to come by passing the order dated 7. 10. 1991. The Courts discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out the hearing. ( 6 ) IN the result the writ petition succeeds and a writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 7. 10. 1991 passed by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation and the order dated 21. 12. 1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and a writ in the nature of mandamus is Issued directing the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to restore the appeal of the petitioner and decide the same on merits within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced. .