JUDGMENT Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This petition has been filed against the restoration order, which has been passed on the application moved by the opposite party. 3. It is not in dispute and the record also reveals that the revision was decided and the delay was condoned, though only one date was given for filing objection. It is also evident from the record that no spot inspection was made, though it was agreed at the time of admission that spot inspection will also be made. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the garb of spot inspection, review cannot be allowed. He also submits that Jagdish Prasad was there and his counsel was present, therefore, it cannot be said that the order was passed ex-parte. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioner that objection has also been filed to the restoration application. 5. If the order has been recalled on the ground that spot inspection was not made and the impugned order was passed, then whether the order passed by the revisional court can otherwise be sustained under law. The consolidation rules require the revisional authority to make spot inspection in chak allotment. Since no spot inspection was made and the counsel was also not given ample opportunity to file objection, the order in question has rightly been recalled. It would be appropriate for the revisional court to make spot inspection and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The petition is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed.