JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. 2. By means of the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor, by which the restoration application filed by the respondent has been allowed. 3. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor vide order dated 29.5.2008 has decided two revisions 572 and 1181. In revision No. 1181, respondents, Tausif Ahmad and Wasim Ahmad were made party. Notice were issued. Notice sent to Tausif Ahmad has returned back with the report that he had gone out of station while in the case of Wasim Ahmad, it was received by him. Sri Vijay Singh, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of Tausif Ahmad. No vakalatnama has been filed by Wasim Ahmad on whom notice has been served personally. So far as revision No. 572 is concerned, respondents, Tausif Ahmad and Wasim Ahmad were not been made party initially. However, impleadment application dated 16.1.2008 has been allowed and they have been made as party but admittedly, no notice has been issued to them. There is nothing in the order dated 29.5.2008 to show that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were present and were heard on the date of hearing. It appears that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed Writ Petition No. 30200 of 2008 before this Court challenging the order dated 29.5.2008. The aforesaid writ petition has been subsequently dismissed as not pressed. The restoration application has been allowed by the impugned order on the ground that the notice has not been issued to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in revision No. 572. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that admittedly, in revision No. 1181 notices were issued to the respondents and was served on Wasim Ahmad. Sri Vijay Singh, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of Tausif Ahmad and, therefore, even if the notices have not been issued in revision No. 572 it cannot be said that the proper opportunity of hearing has not been provided. He submitted that notices were issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in revision No. 1181. Sri Vijay Singh, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of Tausif Ahmad. He submitted that notices were issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in revision No. 1181. Sri Vijay Singh, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of Tausif Ahmad. Notice was personally served on Wasim Ahmad and, therefore, the proper opportunity of hearing was provided to both the parties. He further submitted that since both the revisions, 572 and 1181 have been heard together and proper opportunity of hearing was provided in one of the revision, thus, it amounts to opportunity of hearing in another case also. Therefore, the impugned order allowing the restoration application is wholly unjustified. 5. In support of the contentions, he relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another, (2005) 1 SCC 787 and decision of this Court in the case of Ram Das and another v. D.D.C. and others, 1979 RD, 308. Once the writ petition has been dismissed, the restoration application was not maintainable. 6. I do not see any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Admittedly, the notices were not issued to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in revision No. 572. There is nothing in the order dated 29.5.2008 to suggest that during the course of hearing both the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Tausif Ahmad and Wasim Ahmad were present and they were either heard personally or through their counsel. There is no such averments in the writ petition also. Therefore, it is not a case that both the respondents were present during the course of hearing and have been heard. In the case of Ram Das and another v. D.D.C. and others (supra) several revisions were decided by the revisional authority. In one of the revisions, petitioner was present and heard and on these facts and circumstances, it has been held that the petitioner had a notice of the date of hearing and all the revisions were heard together. There is no reason to think that the order was passed without hearing to the petitioner. This case is not applicable to the present case as admittedly, the respondents were not present during the course of hearing and have not been heard. 8. There is no reason to think that the order was passed without hearing to the petitioner. This case is not applicable to the present case as admittedly, the respondents were not present during the course of hearing and have not been heard. 8. In the case of Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another (supra), Apex Court held as follows : “When an ex-parte decree is passed, the defendant (apart from filing a review petition and a suit for setting aside the ex-parte decree on the ground of fraud) has two clear options, one, to file an appeal and another to file an application for setting aside the order in terms of Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code. He can take recourse to both the proceedings simultaneously but in the event the appeal is dismissed as a result whereof the ex-parte decree passed by the trial Court merges with the order passed by the Appellate Court, having regard to Explanation appended to Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code a petition under Order IX, Rule 13 would not be maintainable. However, Explanation I appended to the said provision does not suggest that the converse is also true.” 9. This case is also does not applicable to the present case. In the present case, writ petition has been dismissed as not pressed. Thus, it cannot be said that the revisional order merged in the order of this Court and, therefore, the decision of the Apex Court does not apply to the present case. 10. In the case of Mahendra Rathore v. Omkar Singh and others, AIR 2002 SC 505 , the Apex Court held that while dealing with the restoration application there should be justice oriented approach and pragmatic view should be taken and not pedantic. 11. In the present case, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not been issued notice and have not been heard while their chak have been affected by the impugned order dated 29.5.2008. 12. I do not find any error in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the restoration application and recalling its earlier order dated 29.5.2008, which has been passed without hearing to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 13. In the result, writ petition fails being devoid of any merit and is accordingly, dismissed. On the facts and circumstances, respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 13. In the result, writ petition fails being devoid of any merit and is accordingly, dismissed. On the facts and circumstances, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to appear before Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor on 4.11.2008. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bijnor is directed to hear both the revisions on the same day or fix any other date for disposal and decide the same expeditiously after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other concerned parties. ————