<y HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WritPetitionNo.2291 OF 2fl&6 PETITIONER Vs. RESPONDENTS 2. Smt. Shushila Ahuja W/o. Shri Ramesh Ahuja, Aged 48 years, R/o. Near Satkar Hotel, Station Road, Raipur, Tahsil and Districl Raipur (C.G.) Sarita Jain W/o. Baijnathpara, Chikni Mandir Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil and Dislrict Raipur (C.G.) The Board of Revenue Through: The Chairman Board of Revenue, Circuit Court Riapur (C.G.) Present: Shri R. Pradhan, teamed counsel for the petitloner. Shri Yashwant Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned G.A. for respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed^n 3ra July^OOS) The way the Board of Revenue has conducted the proceedings, if 1 may say so, is quite objectionable. Facts are not in dispute. On 07.11.2005, the first respondent herein was placed ex parte . Same day the Board of Revenue granted interim order in favour of the petitioner herein and the appeal was listed for fmal hearing on 14.02.2006. On 14.02^006, the Board of Revenue heard the arguments, reserved judgment and flxed the case on 27.02.20W for pronouncement of the order. But, quite curiously on 27.02.2006 instaad of pronouncing the order, the Board of Revenue suo moto vacarted the interim order granted on 07.11^005 on Uie ground that the appellantfpetitioner was not present when the case was called. <n addition, the Board of Revenue also directed fresh notice to respondent f\ -^- No.1 on coming to know that well before 07.11.2005, the first respondent had lodged caveat and was represented by a counsel. (2) Even assuming that the Board of Revenue had good reason to think ftat its order dated 07.11.2005 placing the flrst respondent ex parte was not jusSfied, even then, the principles of natural jusUce and fair play in action required the Board of revenue to notHy the peUtioner to have his say in the matter before passing appropriate order. Such a legitimate course open to the Board of Revenue was not adhere to. The Board of Revenue not only vacated the interim order but also directed notice to ttie parfles without recaHing its earlier order 07.11 .2005. In that view of <he matter, l think that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the order made by Uie Board of Revenue on 27.02^006 and to take appropriate furthersteps after notice to both the sides. (3) In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.02.2006 is set aside. No coste. 1 am told that the Board of Revenue has fixed the case on 24.07.2006 fbr hearing. On that day, both the parties shall appear before the Board of Revenue wiUiout any further notice from the Board of Revenue. On that day, ttie parties shall argue on continuation of intBrim order passed on 07.11.2005 and/or recalling the order made on 07.11.2005 placing the first respondent ex parie. The Board of Revenue shall dispose of the main appeal Uself expedldously, at any rate, within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of Uiis order. _ Sd/- ; ChiefJustice '? -^ A