JUDGMENT D.S. Mishra, Member. - This is a revision filed by Murari Lal Johari against the judgment and order dated 21-5-1977 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bareilly in Appeal No. 31 of 1973. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that Murari Lal Johari had filed a suit under Section 116 of Rampur Tenancy Act against Narendra Verma and others. The suit was decreed ex parte on 14-5-73 as Surendra Verma and Narendra Verma did not turn up despite service and the other defendants did not contest the suit. On 15-5-73 an application on behalf of Narendra Verma was moved for setting aside the ex parte decree. An affidavit was also filed in support of it but the trial court rejected the said application by the order dated 28-9-73. Narendra Verma presented an appeal against this order which was allowed. Murari Lal Johari has then preferred this revision before the Board against the order of the Additional Commissioner allowing the restoration application. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that Narendra Verma himself had not presented the application. It was presented through is counsel and the affidavit in support of it was given by the clerk of the counsel which should not have been considered as it would not be deemed that they had personal knowledge of the facts which prevented Narendra Verma from appearing in the court on the date fixed. He also assailed the order of the learned Additional Commissioner in allowing the appeal on the ground that he had given no reasons for his satisfaction about cause which prevented Narendra Verma appearing in the court on the dated fixed, and argued that such an order was liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that Additional Commissioner had recorded a finding of fact that there were sufficient grounds to allow the application and this findings cannot be interfered with by the Board sitting in revision. He has further argued that a duly sworn affidavit of a pairokar against which no counter affidavit has been filed has got to be believed by the court. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. He has further argued that a duly sworn affidavit of a pairokar against which no counter affidavit has been filed has got to be believed by the court. 6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted case of the parties that Narendra Verma and Surendra Verma were served with notice and in spite of it they could not attend the court on the date fixed and the suit was decreed ex parte against them. But without delay an application was put in on behalf of Narendra Verma for setting aside the ex parte decree in which he had given his reasons which prevented him from appearing in the court on the dated fixed. In support of it an affidavit was also filed against which no counter-affidavit was filed and, therefore, in these circumstances it was just and proper to have believed the reasons given in the said restoration application and it should have been allowed by the trial court. The fact that the application was moved by the counsel on behalf of Narendra Verma does not affect it otherwise as his counsel was legally competent to move the said application. Similarly, this is also settled principle of law that any pairokar who is conversant with the facts and circumstance of the case cold swear an affidavit and as such the affidavit duly sworn by the clerk of the counsel could not be brushed aside and the same importance would be attached to it and it would be deemed to be as if it was given by the appellant himself. The lower appellate court has, therefore, rightly set aside the order of the trial court rejecting the said application which was supported by affidavit which remained un-controverted. This is also settled rule of law that in matters of restoration no strict and rigid view ought to be taken as to defeat the ends of justice. In the instant case it was just and in consonance with justice that the restoration application was allowed and ex parte decree was set aside so as give opportunity to all concerned to litigate their title. 7. As regards the objections of the revisionist that the lower appellate court did not record its satisfaction before passing the impugned order, I find no force in it. 7. As regards the objections of the revisionist that the lower appellate court did not record its satisfaction before passing the impugned order, I find no force in it. The very order passed by the Additional Commissioner shows he had considered the application and the affidavit of Narendra Verma against which no counter-affidavit was filed and feeling satisfied with the reasons given in the said application and affidavit which prevented Narendra Verma from appearing in the court on the date fixed, he allowed the said application. It is evident from para 6 of his order, and therefore, it requires no interference in revision. 8. The last contention of the revisionist was that the lower appellate court could not set aside the ex parte decree as against all the defendants because only Narevdra Verma had moved the application for setting it aside. I do not find any force in this argument. All or any one of the defendants could move an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and if it is set aside it is set aside against all. 9. I, therefore, find no force in the present revision and it is hereby dismissed.