JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, M. - This is a revision petition against the order dated April 25, 1973 passed by Assistant Collector, 1st class, Azamgarh, in a case under section 229/B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Gaon Sabha filed a suit under section 229/B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the defendant-petitioner on January 16, 1970. On March 23, 1973, the plaintiff was absent and the suit was consequently dismissed in default of the plaintiff. On the same date i.e. on March 23, 1973, a restoration application was filed by a private counsel Sri K.B. Asthana on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. 3. On April 25, 1973, the trial court set aside the order dated March 23, 1973 and restored the suit. 4. On October 20, 1973, the Commissioner, Gorakhpur recommended that the revision be rejected. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Sri K.B. Asthana who was a private counsel had no authority to apply for restoration of the case on behalf of Gaon Sabha on March 23, 1973. He contended that the trial court exercised jurisdiction illegally in restoring the suit on the application of Sri K.B. Asthana, Advocate. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the D.G.C. (R.) had given his brief to Sri K.B. Asthana private counsel and had directed him to appear and plead on behalf of Gaon Sabha. He further argued that the Collector also vide his order dated October 1, 1973 had authorised Sri K.B. Asthana to appear on behalf of Gaon Sabha as a special counsel. He contended that in view of the above circumstances the trial court did not commit any illegality in restoring the suit on the application of Sri K.B. Asthana, Advocate. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the D.G.C. (R.) had no power to authorise Sri K.B. Asthana private counsel to appear and plead on behalf of Gaon Sabha. He further argued that the Collector was not competent to validate the appearance of Sri K.B. Asthana in the case on March 23, 1973. 8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly Sri K.B. Asthana was a private counsel in the case and he did not represent Gaon Sabha on March 23, 1973. 8. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. Admittedly Sri K.B. Asthana was a private counsel in the case and he did not represent Gaon Sabha on March 23, 1973. There is nothing on record to show that the D.G.C.(R.) handed over his brief to Sri K.B. Asthana on March 23, 1973. In any case, the D.G.C. (R.) was not competent to authorise a private counsel to appear and plead on behalf of Gaon Sabha. The Collector's order dated January 10, 1973 validating the appearance of Sri K.B. Asthana in the case on March 23, 1973 was also unauthorized. The fact remains that Sri K.B. Asthana being private counsel had no authority to apply for restoration of the case on March 23, 1973 on behalf of Gaon Sabha. That being so, the suit could not be restored on his application. The learned trial court exercised jurisdiction illegally in restoring the suit on the application of Sri K.B. Asthana, Private counsel. I, accordingly, set aside the order dated April 25, 1973 passed by the trial court and allow the revision.