JUDGMENT K. K. Lahoti, J. As all the matters involve similar question of law based on similar facts, this order will decide all the aforesaid cases filed by the Petitioners. These Petitions have been filed challenging Order passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Revision Case No. 9/03/Khandwa/Entry Tax, Revision Case No.6/03/Khandwa/Entry Tax, Revision Case No.5/03/Khandwa/State and Revision Case No.7/03/Khandwa/State. Facts are taken from the W.P. No. 4224/2004. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the Order of the Assistant Commissioner filed revisions before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, M.P., Indore. In the said case, date of hearing was fixed as 10.10.2003. Respondents issued a notice in this regard which was received by the Petitioners. As the Legal Officer of the Petitioner was out of station, the Petitioner sent a telegram on 9.10.2003 to the Respondent No. 2 seeking adjournment of the case. It appears that no intimation was received by the Respondent No. 2 till impugned orders were passed on 10.10.2003. Respondent No. 2 considering the fact that revisions are going to be barred by time, dismissed all the revisions (sic) by the order. Thereafter, Petitioners filed a common Application for Restoration of all the revisions and to hear the cases on merits, but this Application was also rejected by the Respondent No. 2 by Order dated 30.4.2004 (Annexure P-10). This Order is under challenge in this Petition. Learned Counsel for Petitioners submits that revisions were filed agitating a serious question of law before the Respondent No. 2, Petitioners' Legal Advisor was not available so one adjournment was sought from the Respondent No. 2 by sending a telegram but revisions were dismissed by the impugned orders. From the perusal of Annexure P-6, it appears that a message through telegram was sent and aforesaid contention appears to be correct. Though there is no material showing that when this telegram was received in the office of the Respondent No. 2 but the fact remains that the Petitioner made an effort to seek adjournment by sending telegram but message could not be communicated in time and the case was dismissed in default. It is a settled law that the parties should be heard and without hearing the parties, no case should be decided. It is a settled law that the parties should be heard and without hearing the parties, no case should be decided. On previous occasion though Petitioners did not appear before the Authority in spite of the notice, but on the last date of hearing, Petitioners immediately on receiving notice sent a telegram but Petitioners' case was dismissed in default. Considering the aforesaid, one opportunity is allowed to the Petitioner to appear before Respondent No. 2 and to submit their case before the Authority. It is made clear that the Petitioner shall not be entitled for any adjournment in the matter. In case Respondent No. 2 feels that on the reason available to the Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 is not in a position to decide the revisions, Respondent No. 2 shall be free to adjourn the case but the Petitioners shall not be entitled for any adjournment. Petitioner shall appear before the Respondent No. 2 in this regard on 14.3.2005 for which no fresh notice is required to be issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the Petitioners and on appearance of the Petitioners before the Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 2 shall proceed in the matter in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, these Petitions stand finally disposed-of. No. order as to costs.