- (1.) SUDHIR Narain, J. This Writ Peti tion is directed against the order of remand dated 31-5j-1990 passed by the Revisional Court and the order of respondent No. 1 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner to recall the said order.
(2.) THE accommodation in question was allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 in respect of room Nos. 1 to 4 and room Nos. 5 to 8 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 filed revision No. 85 of 1983 before the District Judge, Aligarh. THE revision was allowed and the case was remanded on 31-5-1990. THE petitioner filed an application to set aside the order on the allegation that it was an ex pane order and was passed without hearing him. THE Court rejected his application vide order dated 29-11-1991. THE application for restoration was filed on the ground that there was strike of lawyers from 5-8-1989 to 24-8-1989 and the next date was 15-12-1989 but the petitioner had not informa tion about the said date. THE Court had rejected the application on the ground that it was the duty of the counsel for the petitioner to have known the date fixed in the case. The Court has not disbelieved the version of the petitioner that it had no information regarding the date fixed in the case. It was true that the petitioner should have taken care to have information of the date fixed in the case but taking the liberal view the Court should have given oppor tunity of hearing to the petitioner as it may not suffer on account of negligence of the lawyers. Considering the facts and cir cumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 2941-1991 is quashed. The restoration application is allowed subject to the payment of Rs. 3,000/- as a cost payable by the petitioner to respondent No. 2. The revision shall be decided by respondent No. 1 within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Petition allowed. .;