Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Rajeev Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Kumar appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts relevant for the purposes of the case are that revision filed by contesting respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was dismissed in default by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 31.3.1997. On the same day an application was moved by the contesting respondents to recall the same which was allowed on the same day and two revisions were restored to their original number. Thereafter, the revisions were heard on merits and allowed vide order dated 3.4.1997. Thereafter, an application was moved by the petitioners to recall the said order on the ground that no notices or copy of the restoration applications were ever served upon them and the same were allowed ex-parte and order dated 3.4.1997 allowing the two revisions were also passed ex-parte without any notice or opportunity of hearing. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide impugned order dated 26.4.1997 dismissed the recall application on the ground that order dated 3.4.1997 was passed on merits as such the recall application was not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that Deputy Director of Consolidation acted with material irregularity in dismissing the recall application filed by the petitioners without recording any finding as to whether the petitioners were given any notice or opportunity of hearing or not.;