JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for setting aside of order dated 23.09.2003 passed in Review Petition No. 1 of 2001 vide which petitioner herein had sought the review of order dated 04.05.2000 and 01.04.2000, passed in Case No. 45-S/10 of 1998, and which review petition has been dismissed by the learned Court below. 2. Learned Executing Court in CMP No. 72-S/6 of 1995/99, titled as Market Committee vs. Land Acquisition Collector has disposed of the said application in the following terms:- "In view of the findings on Issue No. 1, the application is allowed and the amount of Rs. 1,37,446/- deposited by the applicant, Market Committee, Shimla and Kinnaur, District is ordered to be refunded to it. Record be completed and consigned to the record room." 3. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the execution petition, an application filed by the Market Committee (which ultimately stood disposed of on 01.04.2000), was ordered to be dismissed in default by the Court on 04.06.1998. Said order was subsequently recalled by the learned Executing Court on 01.10.1999, purportedly on an application filed by the Marketing Committee before it for recalling of the said order without issuance of any notice to the present petitioners, which has caused grave injustice to them because subsequent proceedings which were undertaken by the learned Court, which resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 01.04.2000, in CMP No. 72-S/6 of 1995/99 supra, in which learned Executing Court while allowing the application of the Marketing Committee allowed refund of an amount of Rs. 1,37,446/- in favour of the Marketing Committee and subsequent order dated 04.05.2000, disposing of the execution petition as fully satisfied, were conducted at the back of the present petitioners. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that while passing the impugned order, learned Court has erred in not appreciating that as the orders were passed at the back of the petitioners, therefore, the same were not binding on the petitioners and thus, it would have had been in the interest of justice in case review petition was allowed and after recalling the impugned order dated 01.04.2000 as also 04.05.2000, parties were heard on merit on the application as also in the execution petition. 5. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Marketing Committee/respondent No. 3 has argued that there was no infirmity in the impugned order because as the parties were being duly represented by the learned Counsel before the learned Executing Court, and if subsequently, they chose not to appear in the proceedings pending before the learned Executing Court, respondent No. 3 cannot be made to suffer for that. He further argued that even otherwise the petition is not maintainable as no justification was put forth by the present petitioners before the learned Executing Court as to what took them more than two years to file review of the said order. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the impugned orders as well as other documents appended with the petition. 7. In my considered view, the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 23.09.2003, which is impugned before this Court, is not sustainable in law. It is a matter of record that the application filed by the Marketing Committee seeking release of the amount deposited by it in its favour was dismissed in default on 4.6.1998. It is also a matter of record that application filed for recalling of the said order was allowed by the learned Executing Court without issuance of any notice to the present petitioners. In fact, a perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that this fact has been candidly admitted even by the learned Executing Court. While passing the impugned order, in para 10 thereof, it has observed that even if formal notice to the party has not been issued by the Court, it could not be admitted after a gap of more than two years that order dated 14.07.1998 was factually incorrect. While passing said order, the learned Court lost sight of the fact that on account of the act of omission on the part of the Court, a party cannot be made to suffer. When an application, for restoration of the application dismissed in default, was filed before the Court, the Court was duty bound to have had issued notice on the said application and ensured that the non-applicants in the said application were duly served. The Court could not have had ventured to adjudicate upon the application without issuance of notice to the non-applicants and without ensuring proper service upon the said non-applicants. The Court could not have had ventured to adjudicate upon the application without issuance of notice to the non-applicants and without ensuring proper service upon the said non-applicants. But obvious when the impugned order was passed at the back of the petitioners, then presumption is that they were not aware of the order so passed. All these aspects have been ignored by the learned Executing Court while passing the impugned order. 8. In view of discussion made hereinabove, present petition is allowed. Order dated 23.09.2003, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in Review Petition No. 1 of 2001, as also orders dated 01.04.2000 passed by learned District Judge, Shimla in CMP No. 72-S/6 of 1995/99 and 04.05.2000, passed by learned District Judge, Shimla, in execution petition are set aside/recalled. Execution petition is restored to its original number, so also application filed by respondent No. 3 for release of money. Registry is directed to forthwith send down the record of the case to the learned Executing Court. It is further directed learned Executing Court shall proceed with the matter as per law after hearing all the parties and thereafter shall pass orders in the Execution petition as also on the application filed by the Marketing Committee for refund of the amount. Represented parties through their respective Counsel are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 04.09.2019. Learned Executing Court shall issue notice to the unrepresented parties and thereafter proceed with the matter. 9. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.