JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, M. - This is a revision against the judgment and order dated March 1, 1977 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in revision No. 159 of 1975-76, Manipuri. 2. The facts are briefly that a suit under section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was decided ex-parte against the State and Gram Sabha on April 19, 1974. An application was moved for restoration on August 1, 1974 accompanied by an affidavit, alleging that there had been no service of summons on the Pradhan who had, accordingly, no knowledge of the ex-parte decree. 3. The trial court allowed the application and set aside the ex-parte order after taking note of the fact fact that the order sheet had not been written in the case file for March 26, 1973, March 29, 1974 and April 19, 1974. 4. A first revision against this order has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner who has agreed with the finding of a trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionists has argued that para 128 of the Gram Samaj Manual is mandatory in nature and there should have been a resolution of the Gram Sabha for filling a restoration application. In support of this contention, he has cited a ruling reported in 1977 A.W.C. 668. 6. The ruling cited is not applicable to the facts of the present case as it was not the Gram Sabha which had initiated the litigation, it being the revisionist who had filed the suit against itself. The para of the Gram Samaj Manual quoted refers only to litigation that is initiated on behalf of the Garm Sabha. 7. A ruling reported in 1976 R.D. 6 has been cited in support of the contention that the ulterior motive behind the restoration application should have been considered by the lower courts who failed to do so. 8. It is not clear as to what ulterior motive there could have been in filing a restoration application by the Pradhan of the Gram Sabha against an ex-parte decree. 9. Learned counsel has further argued. that the District Government Counsel had contested the case on behalf of the State and, therefore, the Gram Sabha must be deemed to have had knowledge of the proceedings. He has cited a ruling reported in 1976 R.D. 278 in support of this contention. 10. 9. Learned counsel has further argued. that the District Government Counsel had contested the case on behalf of the State and, therefore, the Gram Sabha must be deemed to have had knowledge of the proceedings. He has cited a ruling reported in 1976 R.D. 278 in support of this contention. 10. The argument of the learned counsel must be accepted as correct so far as it goes. The order of the trial court, however, shows that the case was being contested by the State but the order-sheet in the case file had not been written for March 26, 1974 and subsequent dates. This would lead to the clear conclusion that for some reason, the trial court failed in its duty in informing the parties of the dates fixed for hearing in the case. This was serious illegality which must be held to have vitiated the entire proceeding. 11. Learned counsel has further argued that Order IX, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been complied with by the trial court. He has also cited a ruling reported in 1972 A.W.C. 698 in support of his contention that the Gram Sabha must be deemed to have had knowledge of the proceedings. 12. This argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted. As stated above, the trial court had not intimated the parties of the last three dates of hearing in the case. The ex-parte decree was liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 13. Finally the learned counsel for the revisionists has cited a ruling reported in 1977 R.D. 257 in support of his contention that since the first revision had been filed before the Additional Commissioner on a date previous to August 19, 1975 when the U.P. Land Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 was promulgated thereby introducing a new section Section 333-A, he should have made a reference to the Board and not dismissed the revision filed before himself on March 1, 1977. 14. With all respect, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the Board in the ruling cited. The date of filing the revision before the Additional Commissioner was immateial. 14. With all respect, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the Board in the ruling cited. The date of filing the revision before the Additional Commissioner was immateial. On the date when he gave judgment in the case before him, new section 333-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act had come into existence and he was thereby empowered to dismiss the revision himself instead of making a reference to the Board. 15. The revision application is therefore, dismissed.