JUDGMENT 1. - Admit. Mr. Pawan Pareek appears for contesting respondents no. 4 to 9. The respondents no. 1 to 3 are only formal parties, therefore, their service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner filed second appeal before Revenue Board, Ajmer being aggrieved with the order passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, which was fixed on 24th July, 2008. The counsel for the appellant was not present, therefore, appeal was dismissed in default. The appellant moved an application for restoration of the appeal on next day, i.e. 25th July, 2008, but the same was dismissed by the Revenue Board vide order dated 7th August, 2008, which is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of plaintiff-petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 24th July, 2008, the appeal was dismissed In default and he moved an application on next day itself giving out some reasons for non appearance of the appellant on that day, but Revenue Board rejected the application only on the ground that there is variance in the contents of application as well as affidavit filed in support thereof. He further contended that the provisions relating to restoration are required to be construed liberally, whereas the Revenue Board took a very strong view in respect of restoration of the matter, which is not proper, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order and pointed out the variance in the contents of application as well as affidavit filed in support thereof and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the Revenue Board and after considering the same, I am of the view that Revenue Board committed a gross error and illegality in rejecting the application for restoration of the second appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 24th July, 2008 and the application was filed on the next day i.e. 25th July, 2008 itself. The application was supported by an affidavit also. The appellant filed the application on next day, which shows his bonafides in respect of his non-appearance on 24th July, 2008. The appeal was dismissed on 24th July, 2008 and the application was filed on the next day i.e. 25th July, 2008 itself. The application was supported by an affidavit also. The appellant filed the application on next day, which shows his bonafides in respect of his non-appearance on 24th July, 2008. Even if there is some slight variance in the contents of application and the affidavit, the same cannot be a ground for rejecting the application for restoration of the appeal. In these circumstances, the order passed by the learned Revenue Board cannot be allowed to be sustained and the same is liable to be set-aside and the same is hereby set-aside. 7. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 7th August, 2008 passed by Revenue Board is set-aside. The second appeal filed by the plaintiff is restored to its original number. The Revenue Board is directed to decide the appeal of petitioner on merits. 8. The cost is made easy.Writ petition allowed. *******