JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, M. - These are the three connected Revisions against the order dated November 16, 1970 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class Azamgarh in case under section 100(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Gaon Sabha made an allotment of land in favour of the petitioner in 1961. Proceedings under Section 198(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancellation of allotment were started in 1968. On July 30, 1968, the trial court abated the proceedings under Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. On June 8, 1970 an application was filed by one Sehan stranger for review of the order dated July 30, 1968. 3. On November 16, 1970, the trial court allowed the application of Rohan and set aside the abatement order dated July 30, 1968. It reopened the proceedings in all the cases. 4. On June 21, 19 (Sic) the Additional Commissioner recommended that the revision be allowed and order passed by the trial court be quashed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner supported the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner and argued that Rohan, being a stranger and not party to the proceedings, had no right to apply for review of the order dated July 30, 1968. He contended that the trial court exercised jurisdiction illegally in setting aside the order dated July 30, 1968 and, therefore. Its order dated November 16, 1970 deserves to be set aside. He placed reliance on the case Sukhdeo v. Jagdhari 1974 R.D. 298 in which it was held that:- "It is only a party to the suit who can apply for restoration of the suit and not a third person. Revisionist being not party to the suit the had no right to apply for restoration of the suit." 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the proceedings under section 198(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act could not be legally abated under section 5(2)(a) of the U.P.C.H. Act. He contended that the trial court acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally in abating the proceedings under section 5(2)(a) of the U.P.C.H. Act. He conceded that the order dated November 16, 1970 by which the trial court set aside the abatement order dated July 30, 1968 was also without jurisdiction. He contended that the trial court acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally in abating the proceedings under section 5(2)(a) of the U.P.C.H. Act. He conceded that the order dated November 16, 1970 by which the trial court set aside the abatement order dated July 30, 1968 was also without jurisdiction. He however, argued that if the order dated November 16, 1970 is set aside then the illegal order dated July 30, 1968 will prevail. He contended that Board should not, under the circumstances, interfere with the order dated November 16, 1970. He placed reliance on the case. Chunni Lal v. Shamsher Singh 1957 R.D. 154 in which it was held that:- "Where the original order of the Tahsildar delivering possession to the decree holders was not correct because the judgment debtors were not liable to ejectment on the ground of their having acquired Adhivasi rights than even though the appeal to the Collector may or may not have been competent still the Board will not interfere in revision to restore what was an illegal order." He also placed reliance on the case Sohan Lal v. Central Distillery Chemical Works Ltd. and others 1957 R.D. 426 in which it was held that:- "The Board should refuse to exercise its powers in revision in order to restore a wrong order especially if the result be that exercising the revisional powers the Board shall be restoring not wrong order of the courts below but a wrong and no unlawful arrangement for setting the land which was made by the Goan Sabha. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction is when all is said and done a discretionary matter and the discretion is one to be exercised not merely into the light of the letter of the law but having regard to the board considerations of equity involved. It has been the view of the Board that even when otherwise a case is made out for revisional interference. It will decline to use its powers unless material has resulted to be petitioners." 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record. 8. The proceedings under Section 190(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act could not be legally abated under section 5(2)(a) of the U.P.C.H. Act. It will decline to use its powers unless material has resulted to be petitioners." 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record. 8. The proceedings under Section 190(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act could not be legally abated under section 5(2)(a) of the U.P.C.H. Act. Thus order dated July 30, 1968 passed by the trial court was without jurisdiction Rohan who was stranger and not a party to the proceedings applied for setting aside the order dated July 30, 1968 on November 16, 1970, the trial court set aside the order dated July 7, 1968. The order dated November 15, 1970 could not be passed on the application of stranger who was not a party to the proceedings. This order is also therefore, without jurisdiction. However, if the order dated November 16, 1970 is set aside when the illegal order dated July 30, 1968 will prevail. The board will not, under the circumstances, interfere revision to restore the illegal order. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party apply on all forms on this point No. material injustice will be caused to petitioner if the order dated November 16, 1970 is not set aside. Consolidating this aspect of the matter also the order dated November 16, 1970 does not call for ant interference. The revisions are dismissed. This order will govern revision Nos. 80A and 80B of 1971-72, Azamgarh also.