was appointed as the Lambardar of Village Raiwal, as well as the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab had also been set aside.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the review application preferred by respondent No.4 was to be allowed, in that eventuality, the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, should have restored the main revision petition (ROR No.163 of 2020) to its original number and listed the same for final hearing on its own merits.

3. Learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.4, who is present in Court, has not raised any objection to the aforesaid proposition propounded by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that respondent No.4 would have no objection in case the impugned order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, is confined only to the extent of allowing the review application bearing No.3 of 2024 by recalling the order dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab; however, without setting aside the orders dated 22.05.2017 (Annexure P-1) and 23.07.2019 (Annexure P-3). He further submits that the revision petit