IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2343 of 2009 SHREE SARNANANDJEE @ SATGURU SARNANAND CHELA OF HARI SEWA NAND JEE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUKURAHI, POLICE STATION SONHAN, DISTRICT KAIMUR(BHABHUA) AT PRESENT GADAWA GHAT, VARANASI(U.P.)---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION, BIHAR, PATNA---RESPONDENTS IST SET. 3. RAMADHAR SINGH, SON OF LATE JIBODHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUKURAHI, POLICE STATION SONHAN, DISTRICT KAIMUR(BHABUA) —RESPONDENT 2ND SET. 04. 09.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also counsel for private respondent no.3. 2. Petitioner who was opposite party in Consolidation Revision Case No.10 of 2005 is aggrieved by the order dated 12.1.2009, Annexure-6 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna in the said revision case, whereunder the aforesaid revision case has been allowed without hearing the petitioner herein, although he had appeared in the proceeding but on 12.1.2009 was absent as on the said date he was not represented by his counsel, which fact is evident from order dated 12.1.2009. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner herein that for the failure of his counsel to appear before the learned Director, Consolidation on 12.1.2009 his case could not be placed before the learned Director and he has been prejudiced to that extent and the revision application filed by Ramadhar Singh was allowed without appreciating his case. 4. Counsel for Ramadhar Singh, on the other hand, has submitted that true it is that on 12.1.2009 petitioner herein was not represented by his counsel before the Director, Consolidation but earlier he had appeared through his counsel and his counsel did not - 2 - choose to appear on 12.1.2009 before the learned Director, Consolidation, the Director had no option but to proceed ex parte and this Court should be slow in setting aside the order dated 12.1.2009, Annexure-6. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order dated 12.1.2009 has been passed in absence of the counsel for the petitioner herein, as such , he has been prejudiced to that extent as for the failure of his counsel to appear his case could not be placed before the learned Director, Consolidation. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner herein to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/-(One thousand) to the counsel for respondent no.3, Sri Chakrabarti Singh, who should grant a receipt therefor and in consideration of such payment order dated 12.1.2009 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Bihar, Patna is set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Director, Consolidation on 23.11.2009 and thereafter the learned Director should hear both the parties on the date fixed by him in presence of counsel for both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. While passing the present order this Court has not considered the case of the petitioner on merit. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)