IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 890 of 2001 (Old No. 7728 of 1999) Balwant Singh son of Budh Singh. … Petitioner. Versus Assistant Director of Consolidation Camp Haridwar and others. … Respondents. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.3/1. Date August 09, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18-2-1999 passed by the Assistant Director of Consolidation, Muzaffarnagar, Camp Haridwar (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) whereby the revision filed by respondent no.3- deceasd Lahaur Singh was allowed and the order passed by the appellate court has been set aside. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioner, are that the Settlement Officer Consolidation (for short S.O.C.) has passed an ex parte order dated 18-11-1995 in Appeal No. 109/226. The order passed by the S.O.C. has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. By this order, the appeal of the appellant-petitioner herein was allowed ex parte. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent no.3- Lahaur Singh (since deceased) preferred revision. It is specifically stated in paragraph no. 7 of the memo of revision (Annexure No. 2 2 to the writ petition) that the revisionist was deprived to present his case before the appellate Court and the order impugned was an ex parte order against the principles of natural justice. The revisional court condoned the delay in filing the revision and on the same day, the revision was decided in favour of the respondent no.3- revisionist. It is well settled that the appellate Court can appreciate the finding of fact as well as the legal issues, while the scope of revision is limited in comparison to that of the appellate Court. Undisputedly, the appeal was allowed ex parte and no opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent no.3-revisionist before the S.O.C., Haridwar, Camp Roorkee. As such the appeal had not been decided on merits. Therefore, the learned revisional court has committed a manifest error of law in deciding the revision finally himself. When the appeal was decided ex parte and revision was preferred, then the proper course was open to the revisional court to have directed the appellate court to decide the appeal on merits. Moreover, in the instant case, the revision was decided on the same day after condonation of delay in filing the revision. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the legal heirs of deceased respondent no.3 has no objection if the appeal is decided afresh by the S.O.C. after hearing the petitioner as well as the legal heir of the respondent no.3. In the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is partly allowed. Costs easy. The impugned order dated 18-2- 3 1999 passed by the revisional court is partly set aside. Part of the order whereby the ex parte order passed in appeal has been set aside by the D.D.C. is maintained. The learned S.O.C. is directed to decide the appeal no. 226 Balwant Vs. Lahaur Singh and others afresh on merits after hearing all the parties concerned, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Till the disposal of appeal, both the parties shall maintain status quo regarding possession. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP