Judgment : 1. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 27th June, 1983 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No. 6/D/76 Aurangabad. 2. The facts of the case are stated in the impugned judgment and therefore, those facts are not repeated herein. 3. The restoration petition filed by the petitioners herein for restoration of the Review Petition No. 1C75-Aurangabad came to be dismissed by the impugned order in this petition. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, Advocate engaged by the petitioner was prosecuting some civil matter before the Civil Court and as a result, on the date on which the said review petition was fixed for hearing, Advocate could not remain present. It is submitted that, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has rejected the restoration petition on the ground that, the petitioner has not filed any affidavit before the M.R.T. stating therein that, on the particular date when the review petition was fixed for hearing, Advocate engaged by the petitioner was engaged in some civil matter before Civil Court. According to the Counsel for the petitioners, the view taken by the M.R.T. is hyper-technical. The right of the petitioner to contest the review petition on merits has been taken away by the impugned judgment and order. It is submitted that, the Tribunal should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to file his affidavit or his Advocate’s affidavit stating therein that, on the particular date when the review petition was fixed for hearing, Advocate was engaged before the Civil Court to argue some other civil matter, however, such course has not been adopted by the M.R.T. which resulted miscarriage of justice and therefore, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the writ petition may be allowed. The Counsel for the petitioners submits that, some reasonable costs may be imposed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the original respondents in review petition submits that, in spite of giving repeated opportunity to the review petitioner, review petitioner or his Advocate did not attend the proceedings and as a result, on many occasions, successive applications filed for restoration came to be rejected. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the original respondents in review petition submits that, in spite of giving repeated opportunity to the review petitioner, review petitioner or his Advocate did not attend the proceedings and as a result, on many occasions, successive applications filed for restoration came to be rejected. It is submitted that, in absence of affidavit of the petitioner stating therein that, Advocate engaged by the petitioner was absent due to his engagement in some other Court, the view taken by the M.R.T. cannot be faulted. Even writ petition filed before this Court was dismissed for want of prosecution twice and restored to its original file on the request of the petitioners. Therefore, looking to the peculiar facts of this case, this Court may not show any indulgence to the petitioners. 6. Upon hearing the Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the reasons recorded by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejecting the restoration petition, it is abundantly clear that, only reason which is assigned by the M.R.T. is that, the petitioner did not file affidavit stating therein that, on the particular date, the Advocate was engaged in some other Court and therefore, he could not attend the proceedings before the M.R.T. Another reason which is assigned by the M.R.T. is concerned, Advocate has not filed affidavit. In my opinion, the M.R.T. should have given further opportunity to the petitioner to file affidavit. However, it appears that, merely because the affidavit is not filed by the petitioner, the restoration petition came to be rejected. Upon perusal of the facts of the case it is true that, on earlier occasions, M.R.T. has shown indulgence to the petitioner and the applications for restoration of the review which were dismissed in default for want of prosecution, were restored by the M.R.T. However, it is also equally true that, by dismissing the petition for restoration, the petitioners are deprived from prosecuting the review petition on merits. 7. Therefore, in the aforesaid background, ends of justice would met if the review petition No. 1C75-Aurangabad is restored to its original file by compensating the respondents by directing the petitioners to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rs. Twenty five thousand only) towards the costs before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad within eight (8) weeks from today. In the result, the following order is passed. Twenty five thousand only) towards the costs before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad within eight (8) weeks from today. In the result, the following order is passed. ORDER : (1) The impugned judgment and order is set aside subject to depositing the costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand only) by the petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad within eight (8) weeks from today. (2) It is made clear that, depositing of Rs.25,000/-is a precondition for restoration of the Review Petition No. 1C75-Aurangabad. In case, costs of Rs. 25,000/- are deposited before the M.R.T. Aurangabad within eight (8) weeks from today, Review Petition No. 1C75-Aurangabad is restored to its original file and the M.R.T. Aurangabad will proceed to decide the said review petition on its own merits. (3) Upon depositing costs of Rs.25,000/-by the petitioners, the respondents will be entitled to withdraw the said amount without any formal application or condition. (4) The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad to fix the particular date for hearing of the review petition. The Counsel for the petitioners has assured this Court that, the review petitioners will argue the review petition on the same date and will not ask for any adjournment. (5) Rule made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition is disposed of. The Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court, forthwith.