JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. - Petitioner-society was ordered to be amalgamated with respondent No. 3 by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 18.2.1999 on 21.12.2000. The petitioner filed a petition under the Cooperative Societies Act before respondent No. 1, challenging the order of amalgamation. Upon notice, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 3 put in appearance through counsel and the case was adjourned for various dates. On 2.8.2001, the Reader of respondent No. 1 given the next date of hearing as 26.9.2001 and both the counsel noted the give date. On 26.9.2001, the counsel was informed that the case has already been dismissed in default on 6.9.2001. On 27.9.2001, an application was moved for restoration of the case. The application for restoration of the case was dismissed on 6.12.2001 by respondent No. 1. 2. Written statement has been filed by respondents No. 1 and 2. A preliminary objection has been taken to the effect that no occasion has arisen to the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Sran has submitted that the petitioner-society had not raised an objection to the amalgamation. Rather, it has passed a resolution on 24.07.1999 approving the merger in respondent No. 3. He, therefore, submits that even if the matter had been heard on merits, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the matter was in fact adjourned to 6.9.2001. Consequently, the revision was rightly dismissed for default. 3. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We are conscious of the settled proposition of law that the mistake or negligence of the counsel ought not to be permitted to cause damage to the litigant. In the present case, both the counsel have stated that, bona fide, they had noted that the case was fixed for 26.09.2001 but in fact the matter had been fixed for 6.09.2001. In such circumstances, it was wholly unreasonable to decline the application for restoration of the revision petition. It is to be noted that the petitioner-society did not gain any advantage by delaying the proceedings. In fact, the petitioner-society was the aggrieved party seeking relief. Furthermore, it is always in the interest of justice to decide the quasi-judicial matters on merits. In such circumstances, it was wholly unreasonable to decline the application for restoration of the revision petition. It is to be noted that the petitioner-society did not gain any advantage by delaying the proceedings. In fact, the petitioner-society was the aggrieved party seeking relief. Furthermore, it is always in the interest of justice to decide the quasi-judicial matters on merits. Technicalities ought not to be taken into account by the quasi judicial authorities like respondent No. 1 who is to be guided by the rules of natural justice. 4. In view of the above, we find that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annexures P.1 and P.3 are hereby quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the revision petition on merits after hearing the counsel for the parties. The revision petition is restored to its original number. Let the revisional authority issue notice to the original parties for the date fixed for hearing. Petition is allowed. No costs. Petition allowed.