Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) RESPONDENT No. 3 who is the only contesting respondent is represented through learned Counsel Sri Balram Gupta who has filed caveat and by Sri Jamal Ali who has filed Vakalatnama today on his behalf. With the consent of the parties the petition is being decided at the admission stage without calling for counter and rejoinder affidavits. D.D.C. Basti decided Revision No. 2761 on 9.10.2003 in which all the three petitioners were respondents. Through the said order revision was allowed. Thereafter, petitioners filed a restoration application. D.D.C. by order dated 22.5.2004 which is impugned in the instant writ petition rejected the restoration application holding that notice on Onkar Dutt petitioner No. 1 was personally served, however, he did not appear in the revision deliberately. There is no finding in the said order that notice was served upon petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. It has also been mentioned in the said order that the earlier order dated 9.10.2003 allowing the revision was passed on merit hence there was no occasion to set -aside the same. The latter finding of D.D.C. is not understandable. A revision or appeal can always be allowed on merit and never in default. Revision can be dismissed in default but not allowed in default. The mere fact that the revision had been allowed on merit was no bar for setting aside the said order, if respondents satisfied that they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing in the revision. D.D.C. has not disbelieved that petitioners No. 2 and 3 were not served.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY writ petition is allowed. Order dated 22.5.2004 is set aside. Restoration application of petitioners is allowed on payment of Rs. 500/ - cost. Cost must be paid either before the D.D.C. concerned or to the learned Counsels for contesting respondent who are appearing in this Court. The order passed by D.D.C. dated 9.10.2003 allowing the revision is set aside. D.D.C. is directed to decide the revision again on merit after hearing all the parties concerned. Petitioners as well as contesting respondent No. 3 Dwarika Prasad are "directed to appear before" D.D.C. concerned on 13.9.2004. D.D.C. must either hear the revision on the said date or shall fix another date for hearing in the revision. Revision must be heard and decided within two months from today. Until decision of revision parties shall maintain status quo as prevailing today.;