JUDGMENT 1. Instant intra court appeal has been filed against the impugned order of the ld. single Judge dated 20.7.2011 upholding the orders dated 3.9.2004 & 2.11.2004 passed by the ld. Sub Divisional Officer and order dated 5.7.2008 passed by the Board of Revenue and dismissed writ petition. 2. The facts in brief which are relevant for our consideration is that the respondents-1-20 jointly filed a revenue suit for declaration and permanent injunction before the ld. S.D.O., Amer and as per the record, notices were issued on 6.7.2004 for 3.9.2004 and the revenue court in its order sheet dated 3.9.2004 observed that the present appellants have failed to appear despite service and considered to proceed ex parte against them, however, on two dates of hearing i.e. 8.9.2004 & 13.9.2004, no effective steps were taken because of Presiding Officer was on leave, however, on next date 20.9.2004, the present appellants filed application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. for recalling of order dated 3.9.2004 and provide them opportunity of hearing but the ld. revenue court kept the application pending and granted permission to examine plaintiffs-witnesses PW-1-8 on 20.9.2004 and posted the application for 2.11.2004. On 2.11.2004, the application filed by plaintiff was rejected on the premise that witnesses have already been examined as no sufficient cause was shown for non appearance on 20.9.2004 and the order dated 2.11.2004 was affirmed on 5.7.2008 by the Board of Revenue and by the ld. Single Judge of this Court. 3. Counsel for appellant submits that notices were issued by the ld. revenue court on 6.7.2004 for 3.9.2004 and notices are served but the appellants could not appeared on 3.9.2004 for unavoidable reason, ex parte proceedings were initiated but when the matter came before the Court on 20.9.2004, application was filed by the appellant under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. for recalling of the order initiating ex parte proceedings against the appellant on 3.9.2004 and submits that at least his application was supposed to be granted precedence before the plaintiffs witnesses were examined on 20.9.2004 and that certainly denies fair opportunity of hearing. 4. 4. Counsel for appellant further submits that the application filed on 20.9.2004 was posted for hearing on 2.11.2004 and plaintiffs witnesses (PW1 to PW8) were examined on 20.9.2004 the process itself was wholly uncalled for and lack transparency and that denies the right of cross examination and in absence of their written statement being on record, action and the proceedings in the manner initiated could not be said to be fair in the eye of law and that certainly requires interference of this court. 5. Counsel for respondent opposed the submission made by the counsel for appellant and submits that instant intra court appeal is not maintainable and after the notices were duly served on 3.9.2004 no error was committed by the ld. revenue court in passing the order and further order passed on 2.11.2004 is in conformity with law and does not require interference and further submits that total facts were looked into not only by the revenue court but also by the ld. Single Judge and there appears no error apparent which requires interference. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and we find that the application was filed by the appellant u/O 9 Rule 7 CPC on 20.9.2004 but for unavoidable reasons the appellants could not appear on the first date of hearing after notices were served on 3.9.2004 and even if it is assumed of notices being served and effected upon the appellants at least a reasonable time was to be afforded for filing written statement and that could not be a reason to foreclose the right of defence by the revenue court without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and indisputably the application moved under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC on 20.9.2004 was on record, the ld. revenue court has observed that it was filed after plaintiff witnesses PW1-PW-8 were examined but still fact remains that the application was filed on the same day on 20.9.2004 and it was expected from the revenue court to decide the application before proceeding with the revenue suit and that certainly deprives a fair opportunity of hearing which otherwise concomitant and is the requirement of law and for dispensation of justice it is expected to provide reasonable opportunity which could not be a paper compliance but opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the litigating parties which in our considered view is completely missing in the facts & circumstances of the present case. 7. At the same time, we find substance in the submission of counsel for respondent that since the suit was filed in 2004 it requires urgent attention and if the matter is remitted back to the revenue court it goes to square one and may take its own time for final disposal. It has been informed that in the revenue court the matter is listed on 11.4.2014. 8. Consequently, in our considered view, the orders of the ld. revenue courts dated 3.9.2004, 2.11.2004, 5.7.2008 and of the ld. Single Judge dated 20.7.2011 are not sustainable in the eye of law and are quashed & set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court of S.D.O. Amer. Let the parties may appear in the pending suit before the S.D.O. Amer on 11.4.2014 and the appellants are at liberty to file their written statement within 30 days of their appearance and opportunity is granted to cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses and it is expected from the ld. revenue court to expedite the hearing and decide the pending suit within six months as far as possible. 9. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.Appeal Disposed of. *******