JUDGMENT : BISWANATH RATH, J. 1. Filing this writ application, the petitioners have assailed both the orders in appeal as well as revision passed under Annexures-3 & 5. 2. Assailing the impugned orders, Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Objection Case involved in the dispute was decided on 31.7.1990 and an appeal was filed by the private opposite parties, vide Consolidation Appeal No. 164/1998 on 24.12.1998, i.e., almost after eight years and five months. It is alleged that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned in absence of any notice to the present petitioners appearing as respondents in the said appeal. Secondly, in spite of the petitioners filing a petition for deferment of the hearing appearing at Annexure-2, the hearing of the appeal was not deferred and on the other hand, the appeal was concluded only after hearing the appellants therein. Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners, further contended that even though the revision was preferred against the appellate order under Annexure-3, the petitioners had a clear case against condonation of delay of almost eight years and five months and no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondents in the appeal, for non-consideration of the above, both the impugned orders become bad. Sri Nayak, learned counsel for the petitioners, drawing this Court’s attention to the specific averment in the above regard made by the petitioners in the revision, particularly, paragraph-5 of the revision petition, impressed the Court and tried to satisfy the grounds involving the impugned orders. 3. Sri Mohanta, learned counsel appearing for the private opposite parties, though did not strictly refute the allegations made herein but contended that the petitioners’ remaining silent on the issue of condonation of delay at the relevant point of time and their participation in the hearing estopped them from making grounds presently raised and thus, there is no illegality committed by the revisional authority. 4. Sri Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for O.Ps. 4. Sri Dash, learned Additional Standing Counsel for O.Ps. 1 to 4, even though did not object the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the question of condonation of delay and hearing of the appeal in absence of the petitioners, but taking queue from the submissions of Sri Mohanta, learned counsel for the private opposite parties, submitted that for the petitioners’ remaining silent on the aspect of condonation of delay at the relevant point of time, the petitioners have no case presently. 5. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, the Objection Case was decided on 31.7.1998. There appears that there is no dispute that the appeal at the instance of the private opposite parties was filed on 24.12.1998, i.e., after almost eight years and five months. The Appeal Memorandum was accompanied with a petition for condonation of delay. From the allegation and the impugned order at Annexure-3, this Court finds, the delay has been condoned for the reasons assigned therein, but unfortunately, in absence of any notice on the question of delay to the respondents therein, i.e., the present petitioners. Law is fairly settled that delay in moving the higher forum needs consideration only after a notice to the adversary. It appears, there is failure in exercise of power by the appellate authority and the delay of eight years and five months should not have been condoned in absence of notice to the respondents. This Court further finds from the impugned order under Annexure-3 that the appeal was also decided only hearing the appellants. Therefore, the appellate order is also otherwise not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Now considering the revisional order, since this Court finds, the appellate order is illegal and cannot be sustained in the eye of law, the revisional order also cannot be sustained. Under the circumstance, this Court sets aside both the orders under Annexures-3 & 5 impugned herein and remits the matter back to the appellate authority for re-hearing on the question of delay after giving opportunity of hearing to the present petitioners. 7. Since this matter is decided in presence of the contesting parties, the contesting parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority with a copy of this judgment on 14.12.2016. 7. Since this matter is decided in presence of the contesting parties, the contesting parties are directed to appear before the appellate authority with a copy of this judgment on 14.12.2016. It is made clear that in the event, any of the parties is unable to appear on the date fixed, the appellate authority shall issue notice to such parties and thereafter proceed in the matter. The writ application stands allowed.