1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of Financial Commissioner with powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner dated 29-8-05 by virtue of which application of petitioners for re-admission of appeal, dismissed on account of non prosecution on 6-8-1997, has been dismissed. 2. Petitioners have stated Gullu Ram, the father of petitioner no. 1 to 6 and husband of petitioner no. 7 filed an appeal against the order of Tehsildar Jammu dated 18-11-1991, with regard to mutation no. 185 by virtue of which respondents 2 to 10 were allowed to resume the land under section 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act, mentioned in caption of petition. That this appeal was presented before Financial Commissioner with powers of Agrarian Reforms Commissioner on 5-7-1993. This appeal was ultimately dismissed due non prosecution on 6-8-97. Thereafter, Gullu Ram appellant filed an application for re-admission of his appeal on various ground on 29-7-02 and finally court below also dismissed the application on 29-8-05. 3. It has further been stated that Gullu Ram during the pendency of restoration application expired on 24-7-04, and application for bringing on record legal representative was filed and even objections to this application were filed. That court below did not decide that application but instead finally disposed of restoration application. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole aspect of the matter. 5. From the perusal of file of court below, I find that application for substitution for bringing on record the legal representative of Gullu Ram was not decided on merit, so question remained un decided as to whether legal representation mentioned in the application for bringing on record in place of Gullu Ram were genuine and were entitled to be heard. The court below firstly was to decide the application for bringing representative of Gullu Ram and only thereafter the final application for re-admission of appeal was to be decided. The court below was not justified in deciding the application for re-admission of appeal on merit. 6. The order impugned therefore suffers from serious illegality because petitioners herein have been deprived for right of hearing. Accordingly order impugned is set aside and the case is remanded back to court below with the direction that firstly application petitioners for bringing on record them as legal representative be decided and only thereafter order be passed on re-admission. 7. Parties are directed to appear before court below on 26-3-2012. Accordingly order impugned is set aside and the case is remanded back to court below with the direction that firstly application petitioners for bringing on record them as legal representative be decided and only thereafter order be passed on re-admission. 7. Parties are directed to appear before court below on 26-3-2012. 8. File of the court below is sent back along with a copy of this order. File of this court be consigned to record after due compilation.