1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the order of a Civil Judge setting aside an ex parte order in a reference under section 35 of the Land Acqui--sition Act of 1893 was upheld.
2. It appears that the Land Acquisition Collector made a reference in May 1955, in respect of the acquisition of certain property in which Imam Din, Mehraj Din, Manzoor Hussain and some others were shown as parties. Notices were directed to be issued but on the date fixed the file was found to be without the paper; of the Collector. The completion of the record was, accordingly, ordered.
3. Subsequently i.e the presence of the Govern--ment Pleader it was fixed for evidence on 21-3-1956.
4. Evidence started on 19-6-1956. Up to this stage the Government Pleader was present on behalf of the Collector. Ultimately the Civil judge refused to interfere with the order of the Land Acquisition Collector.
5. There was, however, really one reference and not two references which were being dealt with by the Court, but the pro--ceedings became separated by reason of the fact that both the proceedings were not put up together as ordered by the Court on 5-6-1956. As a result the proceedings relating to the present petitioner appear to have been disposed of ex parte against the Collector.
6. When the confusion was detected an application was made for setting aside the ex parte order under Order IX, rule 13 of -the Code of Civil Procedure. Objection was taken that this applica--tion was barred by time, but the learned Civil Judge took the view that since there had been a mistake committed by officials of the Court the parties should not suffer on its account and set aside the ex parte order. It is against this order that the peti--tioner moved the High Court in revision. The learned Single Judge also took the view that since the learned counsel for the Collector never absented himself in the connected reference in which Manzoor Hussain was a party it was clear that there had been some confusion in the minds of all concerned, as a result of non- implementation of the order passed by the trial Court on the 5th of June 1956, for putting up both the references together. The ex parte order was, in the circumstances, patently illegal and made in irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Hence the trial Court correctly recalled its own illegal order.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in support of this petition at some length and examined the various orders filed by him and we are satisfied that the Courts below acted upon sound legal principles in setting aside an ex parte order which had clearly been passed as a result of confusion created by the mis--take of officials of the Court itself. No injustice has, however, resulted to the petitioner, for, the reference will now be heard in the presence of the Collector and other parties concerned. We see no reason, therefore, for granting special leave in such a case where justice has been substantially done. The petition is, accord--ingly, dismissed.