- (1.) S. C. Mohapatra, J. This is a writ revisional power should not interfere with application invoking powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) OPPOSITE Party No. 5 filed a suit for declaring his right in respect of some land. Despite notices, neither petitioner nor State Government contested the same, due to which it was decreed exparte. After 19 years State Government filed applica tion for setting aside the ex pane decree stating that the land in respect of which title has been declared is in communal in nature and no title of individual could have been declared. Trial court being satisfied that application was absent for sufficient cause, set aside the ex parte declaration for hearing of the suit on contest. OPPOSITE party No. 5 filed an application for revision of the said order. Commissioner being impressed with the submission of respondent No. 5 referred the matter to the Board of Revenue, where after hearing the parties Board has al lowed the revision and rejected the ap plication for setting aside ex parte declaration, which is the impugned order in the present writ application. Normally in exercise of writ juris diction, orders of statutory authorities should not be interferred with unless some grave infirmity both in law and facts which are apparent on the face of record are brought to the notice of the Court. In this case, however, I find that Board of Revenue has not kept in mind the general principle that court in exercise of setting aside an order to give chance to parties to contest by disturbing a finding of fact about existence of sufficient cause even if another view is possible on materials on record Therefore, Board of Revenue should not have interferred with the order but should have directed ap plicant to pay costs to the party whose valuable right is taken away putting him to prejudice of contesting a litigation afresh. In view of what I have stated earlier I am satisfied that interest of justice would be best served in case petitioner pays cost of Rs 7,500 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) to opposite party No, 5 within a period of one month from today and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate being satis fied that cost has been paid or deposited with him for payment shall restore the suit and give opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence and to be heard in the matter, so that the litigation before him is concluded by the end of June, 1995. In case the amount of cost as mentioned is not paid within tune stipulated, this writ application shall stand dismissed without any further reference to bench and impugned order shall stand con firmed.
(3.) IN result, the writ application is allowed with no cost to the extent men tioned above. W. P. allowed. .;