JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - Salik Ram, Mangrey, Adharey and Kandhai have come up in revision against the orders of the Tahsildar-Assistant Collector, First Class, Utraula, district Gonda in proceedings under section 122-B, U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act read with Rule 115-C of the rules made under the Act. The learned Commissioner. Faizabad Division, Faizabad who heard the revision has recommended that the revisions may be rejected. At the request of the counsel, I have heard the reference together. 2. The facts of all the revisions are similar. On the report of the Lekhpal, the revisionists were issued notices in Z.A Form 49-A regarding their alleged unauthorised occupation of Goan Sabha land. The revisionist filed objections to the effect that the plots in dispute were not Gaon Sabha property. All these cases were fixed for evidence of the parties on August 16, 1972. On this date the revisionist failed to appear in the court and the learned Tahsildar passed ex-parte orders regarding eviction of the revisionist from the Gaon Sabha land. On September 2, 1972 the revisionist from the Gaon Sabha land. On September 2, 1972 the revisionist filed applications for restoration of the cases. On October 25, 1972 the learned Tahsildar rejected these applications. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the trial court has erred in the exercise of its jurisdiction in not considering the applications for restoration on merits, and that the trial court has also erred in not setting aside the ex-parte orlers particularly whees no objection had been filed by the opposite party. The learned counsel has cited Pinaki Dutt v. Har Narain 1947 R.D. 206 in which B.M. Pedley and J.M. Bates have held that where an application for restoration is supported by an affidavit explaining the absence of the party on the date of hearing and the fact from the Sub-Divisional Officer petition is justified. The learned counsel has also referred to Juggi Lal Kamla Pat v. Ram Janki Gupta A.I.R. 1962 Alld. 407 in which B. Mukarji and D.P. Uniyal, JJ., have observed as follows: "Here also the court below had before it a duly sworn affidavit of the Pairokar of the plaintiff in support of his application and there was no counter-affidavit in traverse of the allegations contained in that affidavit. 407 in which B. Mukarji and D.P. Uniyal, JJ., have observed as follows: "Here also the court below had before it a duly sworn affidavit of the Pairokar of the plaintiff in support of his application and there was no counter-affidavit in traverse of the allegations contained in that affidavit. Under the circumstances it was not open to the sourt to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff that he had brought his witness to the court on May 24, 1956 shortly after the dismissal of the adjournment application." 4. It is a will recognised principle of law that the courts should be liberal in considering applications of restoration so as to promote the ends of justice. Where a person who has been absent on a particular date of hearing shows sufficient reason for the absence and this is supported by an affidavit, the restoration application should be allowed unless the court records a finding that the affidavit is false or that the revision given is frivolous. If such is not the case, the Court would not be justified in rejecting the application for restoration. 5. In the present revisions the reason given for non-appearance is quite sufficient. The revisionist had stated that on August 16, 1972 they were required to appear in the court of the Sub-Division Officer at Gonda. Clearly it is unreasonable to expect that the revisionist could also appear on the same day in the court of the Tehsildar at Utraula which being a Tehsil headquarters must be some distance from Gonda. The applications were supported by affidavits which were not rebutted. If, however, the learned Tahsildar had any doubt about the correctness of the affidavits, he should have verified the fact from the Sub-Divisional Officer. This was, however, not done. I would, therefore, hold that the learned Tahsildar has erred in the exercise of his jurisdiction in rejecting the application for restoration in an arbitrary manner. 6. The learned District Government Counsel has argued that no revisional interference is called for in the present case. This however, cannot be accepted as the impugned orders of the learned Tahsildar are final and the only remedy open to the revisionist is in the form of revision. 7. 6. The learned District Government Counsel has argued that no revisional interference is called for in the present case. This however, cannot be accepted as the impugned orders of the learned Tahsildar are final and the only remedy open to the revisionist is in the form of revision. 7. Disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner, I hereby allow the revisions, set aside the impugned orders of the learned Tahsildar and direct that the shall now decide the restoration applications in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. If necessary, he may get the facts stated in the restoration applications verified from the Sub-Divisional Officer. 8. This order governs References No.s 369 to 372 of 1973-74/district Gonda.