MC 1783/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL Heard Shri S.P.Roy, learned counsel for the applicants and Ms. M .D.Choudhury , learned counsel for the opposite parties/petitioners. This application has been filed by the respondents in CRP No. 2 28 of 2009, praying for modification, vacation or alteration of the order dated 2.7.2009 passed in the aforesaid revision application . Considering the prayer being in the nature of review of the ord er, this Court had directed that the matter be placed before the appropriate ben ch. Since the appropriate bench was not available, the case has been assigned to this Court and accordingly I have taken up the matter. Shri S.P.Roy, learned counsel for the applicants submitted the order dated 2.7.2009 was passed ex-parte and without notice to the respondents a nd on this ground alone, the order should be vacated. Shri Roy also submitted th at since the issue in revision application is pending for adjudication in the Ci vil Court, the respondents (applicants herein) would be prejudiced if demarcatio n of the land under dag No. 262 of Patta No. 75 of village Sahar Bharalumukh, D witya Khanda, Mouza:Jalukbari, District Kamrup is carried out as per order of th is Court. On the other hand, Smti M.Dutta Choudhury has submitted that the application is not maintainable after the disposal of the revision application. Since the order dated 2.7.2009 was passed ex-parte and since the respondents are aggrieved by certain observations, it is just and proper to re -hear the revision application in presence of both the sides. In the case of Sav ithri Amma Seethamma -vs- Aratha Karthy, reported in AIR 1983 SC 318, the Hon’b le Supreme Court was confronted with an identical situation. In that case an app lication was decided in absence of the appellant and when re-hearing applicati on was filed the prayer was turned down by the Court treating it as if it was a review application. Hence, the matter was carried to the Apex Court whereupon the Apex Court has observed that under the facts and circumstances the applicati on for re-hearing of the appeal ought to have been accepted applying the princip le underlying under Order 41 Rule 21 of the C.P.C. In my considered opinion, pr ayer of the present applicants are on better footing inasmuch as the impugned o rder was passed ex-parte against the applicants. The objection of the respondents/ petitioners is basically on the merit of the revision application. I make it clear that, at this stage that I am not dealing with the merit of the revision application. Considering all aspects of the matter, the impugned order, dated 2.7.200 9, passed in CRP No. 228/09 is hereby set aside. Revision petition is restored t o its original file. Until the disposal of the Revision application the demar cation process shall remain stayed. Registry is directed to list CRP No. 228 of 2009 on 27.7.2009 for motio n hearing showing the name of Shri S.P.Roy and others, the learned counsel for the respondents. Misc. application stands disposed of.