IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15345 of 2009 1. SHUSHIL KUMAR KEJARIWAL 2. NARAIN KUMAR KEJARIWAL, BOTH SONS OF LATE MAHABIR PRASAD KEJARIWAL, R/O PURANA CHOUK, BUXAR, P.S. BUXAR(T), DISTRICT BUXAR. 3. RAM LAL SINGH, SON OF DEOMUNI SINGH, R/O KATHATAR, P.S. RAJPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR----PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. DASHARATH BIND, S/O LATE MITHU BIND, R/O AKHOURIPUR, P.S. BUXAR(M), DISTRICT BUXAR----RESPONDENTS. ---------- 02. 16.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2008 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in Cons. Revision Case No.127 of 2007, Annexure-6, whereunder the Director, Consolidation has allowed the said revision case ex parte against the petitioners who were opposite party before the Director, Consolidation. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that notice of the Cons. Revision Case No.127 of 2007 was served on them Bala-Bala and that is why they could not appear before the Director, Consolidation and the order was passed ex parte. 4. Let the petitioners approach the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna and satisfy the Director, Consolidation that the notice regarding Cons. Revision Case No.127 of 2007 was not actually served on the petitioners and was in fact served Bala Bala i.e. without effecting actual service. The Director, Consolidation, if satisfied that the notice was not served on the petitioners then he may recall the order dated 9.5.2008 passed in Cons. Revision Case No.127 of 2007, Annexure-6 and hear the matter afresh after notice to the Opposite Party No.2, the petitioners before the Director, Consolidation. In this connection, it is necessary to point out that it is always desirable to dispose of the proceedings on merits, which is only possible after hearing both sides. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.) - 2 -