Shabihul Hasnain, J.;- This is a case listed in the weekly list. List has been revised. Sri R.N. Tilhari appears for the petitioner. The counsel for the opposite party is not present. These are old hearing matters which have been specifically listed by the orders of the Chief Justice in the weekly list. The intention is to give chance to the respective counsel to adjust their time spread over a week. Despite this facility when the counsel do not appear the courts are left with no option except to proceed in their absence. In the present case Sri R.N. Tilhari is ready with the argument, accordingly the court is proceeding in absence of counsel for the opposite party who has been called twice and found wanting in presence. The petitioner has come up before this court against the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 19.10.2005. By this order the Additional Commissioner has directed that in the application moved for correction of map under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, the opposite parties were not heard. The Collector while deciding the matter had given a finding in favour of the petitioner. A review / recall petition was filed by the parties before the Collector who has rejected the same giving the finding that opposite parties had the knowledge of this application. Being aggrieved by this order of the Collector the opposite parties moved revision before the Additional Commissioner in which the impugned order has been passed. Sri R.N. Tilhari has argued and pointed out that there was another line of litigation between the two parties in the civil court. The grand-father of the substituted petitioner Hublal had filed a regular suit against the opposite parties for the same property and for identical landwhich was decreed in favour of Hublal. A civil appeal was filed by the opposite parties no. 3 to 7 which was also dismissed. A second appeal was filed by the opposite parties 3 and 4 only, which has also been dismissed on 6.7.2006. All these orders have been brought on record by Sri R.N. Tilhari. A dismissal order of the second appeal has been brought on record through rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. Sri R.N. Tilhari has argued that the civil court has given a categorical finding in support of the petitioner regarding the same land which was in dispute before the Collector. A dismissal order of the second appeal has been brought on record through rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. Sri R.N. Tilhari has argued that the civil court has given a categorical finding in support of the petitioner regarding the same land which was in dispute before the Collector. Since the matter has been settled up to the level of HighCourt the order of Additional Commissioner becomes redundant and obsolete. Even if an opportunity is given to the opposite parties they will not be able to overcome the decision of the second appeal. In this view of the matter the order impugned having become infructuous and obsolete and carries no weight today. The petition is thus, allowed. In view of the fact the initial order passed by the Collector dated 30.4.1983 stands revived and shall be applicable in the case of the petitioner. In view of the order of the second appeal the petition is disposed of finally. The order impugned dated 19.10.2005 Additional Commissioner and interim order, if any becomes redundant.