GIRDHARI LAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 11-8-2000 in which learned Additional Com­missioner has set aside the order dated 21-9-99passedinAppealNo. 131/6/98.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revisionist. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the appeal was fixed for hearing. The learned Counsel for the opposite-party appeared in the Court and he has informed the Court that he has no instruction for the arguments from his client. The appeal was heard ex parte and appeal was decided on 21-9-99. A restora­tion application was moved by the opposite-party on 15-11- 99 for setting aside the order dated 21-9-99 passed in the appeal. The learned Additional Commis­sioner vide his order dated 11-8-2000 and has set aside the previous order passed in appeal on 21-9-99. It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that the opposite-parties were properly served but intentionally the Counsel for the respondent has not appeared and argued the appeal. Appeal was heard ex parte and allowed on 21-9-99. Restoration was moved on 15-11-99. If the Counsel of the respondent has not appeared in the Court the interest of the respondent should not be suffered for any lapses on the part of the Counsel of the respondent, the respon­dent should not be allowed to suffer. Therefore, the restoration application which has been allowed by the lower appel­late Court needs no interference.
(3.) REVISION is not fit for admission and is dismissed. Revision dismissed.;