JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri Ashwini Kumar, Commissioner Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Ram Ratan against the order dated March 20, 1971 passed by the Divisional Officer, Bharthana, district Etawah in a case under Section 198(2), U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be allowed, the impugned order set aside the restoration application moved by Ram Ratan on February 24, 1971 allowed, with the result that the proceedings under Section 198(2), U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act may be restored. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Ram Ratan had moved an application in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharthana under Section 198(2), U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act for cancelling the lease granted by the Land Management Committee Sunwarsa Bhatpura in favour of Ram Sewak. After the receipt of the enquiry report, the Sub-Divisional Officer ordered summoning of the allottee, Ram Sewak. Summons could not be served on Ram Sewak. On October 23, 1969, Ram Ratan moved an application for service by publication. This application was allowed and publication was made. On March 11, 1970, the Sub-Divisional Officer consigned the file of the case saying that Ram Sewak was in active military service, that the service by publication was insufficient, and that it was no use lingering on the case and the file may be recalled when Ram Sewak comes home on leave. On Dec. 29, 1970, Ram Ratan moved an application for recalling the case file and enclosed with his application a letter dated August 18, 1970 received from the Commanding Officer, II Army Headquarters Signals Regiment (Signals Enclave) New Delhi-10, saying that Ram Sewak had been discharged from the Army. The Commanding Officer furnished the home address of Ram Sewak and it was the same at was furnished by Ram Ratan. The trial court thereupon recalled the file and summons were again issued to Ram Sewak at the given address but could not be served. On January 1971, the trial court ordered that the correct address of Ram Sewak should be furnished. Once again Ram Ratan furnished the same address of Ram Sewak as he had furnished before. February 1, 1971 was fixed as the next date for the case. On this date Ram Ratan was found absent and the case was dismissed in default. On January 1971, the trial court ordered that the correct address of Ram Sewak should be furnished. Once again Ram Ratan furnished the same address of Ram Sewak as he had furnished before. February 1, 1971 was fixed as the next date for the case. On this date Ram Ratan was found absent and the case was dismissed in default. On February 24, 1971, Ram Ratan moved a restoration application saying that he had got delayed in coming to court on February 1, 1971. The trial court ordered the restoration application to be put up with the case file on March 20, 1971. The order sheet for this day shows that the case file had not come, and still the trial court passed the impugned order as follows: "Orders have already been passed. No question of restoration arises." 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party, Ram Sewak, has contended that the impugned order is perfectly valid and legal as the restoration application was not maintainable. 5. The principles determining the restoration of suits or proceedings dismissed in default are well defined and laid down in order IX, Civil Procedure Code. Rules 3 and 4 of Order IX read as follows:- "3. Where neither party appears when the suit is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed." "4. Where a suit is dismissed under Rule 2 or 3, the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit, or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for such failure as is referred to in Rule 2, or for his nonappearance as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit." 6. As neither party had appeared on February 1, 1971, the dismissal of the case was under Rule 3. The restoration application was, therefore, to be decided in accordance with Rule 4 quoted above. In such a case all that the trial court was to see if the applicant had satisfied the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance. The impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer does not discuss this question at all. The restoration application was, therefore, to be decided in accordance with Rule 4 quoted above. In such a case all that the trial court was to see if the applicant had satisfied the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance. The impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Officer does not discuss this question at all. On the other hand, it is an arbitrary order passed even without looking into the case file stating that 'no question of restoration arises'. This was a patent refusal of the Sub-Divisional Officer to exercise his jurisdiction in his restoration application giving sufficient reason for the non-appearance. It is sated that because of his eye Bicycle going out of order, the applicant had reached the Court late and meanwhile the case had been dismissed in default. A scrutiny of his application shows that the application had in fact been moved in the Court on February 1, 1971 itself and not on February 21, 1971 as stated in the order sheet. On the other hand, February 24, 1971 and March 20, 1971 were the dates fixed for hearing of this application. The trial court has neither considered the facts given in the application nor recorded its satisfaction or dissatisfaction with these facts. On the basis of the record, there was enough material for the satisfaction of the Court for being satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the applicant at the time when the case was called. The learned Commissioner has rightly held that the impugned order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer is not merely unjust and unfair, but also irregular and illegal and calls for interference in revisional jurisdiction. 7. Agreeing with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner, I here allow the revision, vacate the impugned order of the trial court, and allow the restoration application moved by Ram Ratan. The proceedings under Section 198(2), U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act stand restored. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer shall proceed to decide the case in accordance with law after issuing proper notice to Ram Sewak as well as the Land Management Committee.