S. K. SINGH, J. Matter was taken up in the revision of the list. Heard Sri Tripathi. learned Counsel in support of this writ petition. No one appeared for the respondents. 2. This petition challenges the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which revision filed by the respondent was allowed. 3. Proceedings are under section 20 of U. P. C. H. Act which is in respect to allotment of plots in the chak of parties. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer two appeals were filed. One was filed by the petitioner and other was by the respondent. Petitioners appeal was dismissed. Appeal filed by the opposite party was allowed. Thereafter petitioner did not file any revision. Respondent side filed revision which was allowed which is being claimed to be ex-parte order. Petitioner side filed restoration application which has been dismissed. Thus to challenge both orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the restoration and allowing of the revision this petition has been filed. 4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation was ex-parte as no notice was served on the petitioner side and therefore restoration was liable to be allowed. It was then submitted that petitioner is bona fide litigant although he was not given full relief but he was satisfied by his two chaks which was till the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation did not file any revision. But in the revision filed by the respondent-petitioners chak has been made three in number on account of which petitioner has suffered serious injury as he is small tenure holder. Submission is that Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed revision on just mere asking of the respondent without considering petitioners grievance. 5. In view of the aforesaid this Court is to decide the matter. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that till the stage of Settlement Officer Consolidation as submitted by the petitioners Counsel there was only two chaks of the petitioner. By allowing revision number of chak of petitioner has been increased to three. Petitioner claimed to have no notice in the revision. When restoration was filed a finding has been recorded that notices were served on the petitioners wife and in that view service has been accepted to be sufficient. 7. By allowing revision number of chak of petitioner has been increased to three. Petitioner claimed to have no notice in the revision. When restoration was filed a finding has been recorded that notices were served on the petitioners wife and in that view service has been accepted to be sufficient. 7. Be as it may, petitioner claims to be a small tenure holder and number of chak has been increased from two to three at the revisional stage. Perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation makes it clear that he has just narrated claim of the Revisionist and it was said -that his claim is justified and that deserves to be allowed. On examination this Court do not find any reason and analysis fo- accepting the claim of the Revisionist qua petitioner. Revision was decided between two parties, and therefore, claim/inconvenience/hardship, if any, of the petitioner was liable to be taken note. Judgment indicates that it was just an ex-parte affair. The claim of one side may be accepted /rejected but at the same time it has to appear that claim of other side has been taken into account which appears to be not so from the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The judgment is very sketchy, non speaking, no reasons are there either to accept the Revisionist claim or not to accept the respondents claim and to disturb him. This Court is convinced that petitioner has made out a case for fresh attention. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment passed by the Revisional Court is hereby quashed. The Revisional Court is directed to revive the revision to its original number and to decide the same in accordance with law preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Petition Allowed. .