JUDGMENT J.S. Gupta, Member. - These are five second appeals against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, in cases under Sections 229-B/176 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that five suits were filed by Bashir, Sharif and Haneef, plaintiffs, for declaration of their rights and division of their shares. The suits were dismissed on May 8, 1967 under Order IX, Rule 2, C.P.C. in default of both the parties and were restored the same day. Notice for May 8, 1967 was served on Smt. Batool on May 22, 1967. The suits were dismissed under Order IX, Rule 2, C.P.C. on June 26, 1967 as process fees had not been deposited. On June 27, 1967, restoration applications were filed, alleging the process fees had been filed, but had been kept in the file of another case. On July 24, 1967, the court passed an order for summoning the parties, and fixed August 28, 1967. The cases were adjourned on August 29, 1967, August 25, 1967 and November 18, 1967 for one reason or another. Notice on Smt. Batool was served personally on August 13, 1967. The suits were restored on December 21, 1967. Thereafter the suits proceeded exparte against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Smt. Khatijan (defendant No. 7) entered into a compromise on July 4, 1968. Thereafter, ex-parte evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded and closed on August 5, 1968. The suits were decreed ex-parte on November 14, 1968. On January 20, 1970, Smt. Batool, defendant No. 5, moved applications for restoration, stating that she had no knowledge of the suits and that she came to know about them only on January 7, 1970, when the obtained extract of Khatauni of the land in dispute. This application was apposed on the ground that Smt. Batool had been served personally on May 22, 1967, and then again on August 18, 1967. The trial court held that Smt. Batool had been served personally twice; that Smt. Batool did not deny that papers Nos. 6/4 and 16/1 did not contain the marks of her thumb impression, that she could not explain the delay of over one year in filing the restoration applications and that there was also no explanation for each day's delay even after the alleged date of knowledge viz., January 7, 1970. 6/4 and 16/1 did not contain the marks of her thumb impression, that she could not explain the delay of over one year in filing the restoration applications and that there was also no explanation for each day's delay even after the alleged date of knowledge viz., January 7, 1970. It dismissed the applications for restoration. On appeal, the learned Additional Commissioner observed that "Even if he accepted that the initial summons issued against the appellant were duly served on her, it will have to be noted that the suit was dismissed in default. It was restored in the absence of the appellant on December 21, 1967. There is nothing to prove that she was given information of the restoration of the case", and allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the trial court. Haneef and others have now come up in second appeals before the Board. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the suits had once been dismissed in default of both parties, and restored the same day. According to him, no notice regarding the restoration applications was required to be sent to the other side. He cited A.I.R. 1956 Alld. page 17 in support of this contention. He said that Smt. Batool had been served twice personally and it was not denied before the trial court that the summons did not bear her thumb marks. He argued that Smt. Batool, having been served personally once, it was legally not necessary for the court to issue any further notice to her. He referred to 1952 Alld. page 749, in which it was held as follows:- "Where a suit is dismissed under Order 9, Rule 3 C.P.C., and is restored under Rule 4, the latter rule does not lay down that before a suit is restored a notice should be given to the defendant. A defendant is entitled to a notice only when a suit is dismissed in default under Rule 9 in his presence," It was further held in the aforesaid case that "where a suit, which proceeded ex-parte against the defendant, is dismissed under Rule 3, and is restored under Rule 4, the court commits no illegality or irregularity in giving no notice to the defendants of the date fixed for recording ex-parte evidence". He stated that the restoration application was barred by limitation by more than one year, and the delay in filing the restoration was not explained at all. He argued that it had been fully established that Smt. Batool had been served personally twice, and in view of the ruling reported in 1952 Alld. page 749 the view of the lower appellate court that there was nothing to prove that she was given information of the restoration of the case is unsustainable. He said that service of a notice after restoration was not required, and the view of the lower appellate court was wrong. He stated further that even an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay, had not been moved. He urged that he trial court was perfectly justified in dismissing the applications for setting aside the ex-parte order. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted in reply that the summons for May 8, 1967 was served on the defendant on May 22, 1967 and hence she could not put in appearance on May 8, 1967. According to him, summons had not been served on Smt. Batool. He said that the order, dismissing the suits on May 8, 1967, had not been set aside, and only the order dated June 26, 1967 had been set aside. According to him, a notice was required to be sent to Smt. Batool after restoration of the case. He stated that there was no order of the court for serving summons by registered post. He said that in any view of the matter, notice after restoration was necessary and the learned Additional Commissioner has rightly restored the suits. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted in rejoinder that Smt. Batool had been served trice personally and that it was not necessary to send a notice after restoration. He referred to various order-sheets to show that the court had ordered notices to be served by registered post. He urged that the trial court was correct in passing the order. 6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record of the case. A perusal of the record shows that Smt. Batool had been served with summons once on May 22, 1967 (paper No. 6/4), and then on August 13, 1967 (paper No. 16/1 on trial court's file). 6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties, and have perused the record of the case. A perusal of the record shows that Smt. Batool had been served with summons once on May 22, 1967 (paper No. 6/4), and then on August 13, 1967 (paper No. 16/1 on trial court's file). It is thus evident that Smt. Batool had been served with notice. The trial court, after appreciating the entire circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that all the proceedings of the case were in the knowledge of Smt. Batool before January 20, 1970. The ex-parte order was passed on November 14, 1968. The applications for restoration were filed on January 20, 1970. Smt. Batool could not explain the delay of over one year in moving the applications for restoration. She could also not explain as to why she filed the restoration applications on January 20, 1970 when she came to know about the suits on January 7, 1970. Even if the notice for May 8, 1967 was served on her on May 22, 1971, it was for her to find out as to what had happened in the suits. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the case, reported in A.I.R. 1952 Alld. page 749, it was not necessary for the court to send a notice to Smt. Batool after restoration, and the learned Additional Commissioner was incorrect in taking a view that notice should have been given to her after restoration. In the circumstances of the present case, the trial court was perfectly justified in dismissing the restoration applications and the lower appellate court fell into a legal error in reversing the order of the trial court. 7. In the result, I allow the second appeal, set aside, the order of the lower appellate court and restore that of the trial court. The restoration applications filed by Smt. Batool stand dismissed. Costs on parties. This order will also govern S.A. Nos. 176 to 179 of 1971-72.