ORDER S. Rajan, Member The Naib-Tahsildar, Pargana Ambah, District Morena, dismissed in default a revenue case in which Narain Singh was the applicant as he remained absent on the 6th April, 1962, the date on which the case was fixed for hearing. On 4-5-1962, Narain Singh made an application for restoration of the case and on 19-7-1962 the case was restored to file. The non-applicant, Harvilas, filed an application for revision before the Commissioner against the order dated 19-7-1962 of the Naib-Tahsildar. This application for revision was rejected by the Commissioner and now Harvilas has filed an application for revision against the order of the Commissioner. The order of the Naib-Tahsildar is attacked on two grounds. Firstly it is said that no affidavit was filed by Narain Singh in contravention of Rule 13 of the "Rules regulating the procedure to be followed by Revenue Courts" framed u/s 41, M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. Secondly it is said that the Naib-Tahsildar did not make any enquiry as laid down in Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. It is true that Narain Singh did not file an affidavit with his application for restoration. The filing of an affidavit is not mandatory on account of the clause "unless the Revenue Officer dispenses with this requirement" occurring in Rule 13. The counsel for the applicant pointed out that the Naib-Tahsildar has not passed any order in writing dispensing with the filing of an affidavit. I do not think that it is necessary for the Revenue Officer to pass a written order dispensing with the filing of an affidavit. Wherever an order in writing is considered necessary, it is always mentioned specifically in the statute that an order in writing should be passed. When the application of restoration was accepted by the Naib-Tahsildar without his insisting on the filing of an affidavit it is to be presumed that the Naib-Tahsildar dispensed with the requirement of an affidavit. The dispensing of the requirement of an affidavit is implied in the acceptance of the application for restoration. There is, therefore, no force in the first ground mentioned above. I shall now discuss the second ground mentioned above, namely, that no enquiry was made by the Naib-Tahsildar before passing the order of restoration. The dispensing of the requirement of an affidavit is implied in the acceptance of the application for restoration. There is, therefore, no force in the first ground mentioned above. I shall now discuss the second ground mentioned above, namely, that no enquiry was made by the Naib-Tahsildar before passing the order of restoration. The relevant clause in Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, is "and after making such enquiry as he considers necessary." The important words in the clause quoted above are "as he considers necessary". The words used are not "as may be necessary" but "as he considers necessary". This means that if the Revenue Officer does not consider it necessary to make an enquiry he may not make one. Whatever enquiry appears to be necessary in the mind of the Revenue Officer should be made. This is the effect of the words "he considers". In the order-sheet dated 19-7-1962 the Naib-Tahsildar writes that no medical certificate has been produced as Narain Singh was not under the treatment of any doctor. In that order-sheet there is a portion which has been scored out and from this scored-out portion it appears that Narain Singh had brought with him three witnesses namely, Chanda Singh, Shrilal and Tantiram to prove that he was ill on 6-4-1962. The Naib-Tahsildar probably thought it unnecessary to examine these witnesses and passed an order restoring the case to file on the condition that Narain Singh pays Rs. 20 as costs. While passing the order of restoration the Naib-Tahsildar observed that the illness was a sufficient cause for absence and that this was the first time when Narain Singh was absent. On account of the reasons given above I do not think that the Naib-Tahsildar has committed any illegality in passing the order of restoration. The Commissioner was quite right in rejecting the application for revision filed before him. The application for revision is rejected. Final Result : Dismissed