JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member - This is a revision filed by Chiranji Lal against the order dated July 28, 1976 passed by Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division in Revision No. 996 of 1976. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision are that the opposite party had filed a suit under Section 176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against the revisionist. Several times the suit was dismissed for default for the opposite party, and the last occasion it was dismissed on December 15, 1975. On February 24, 1976 the restoration application was presented by the opposite party. Against it an objection was filed by the revisionist but the trial court allowed this application on May 10, 1976. Against this a revision was filed by the revisionist which was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner on July 28, 1976. The revisionist then preferred the present revision before the Board. 3. After due noticed from the Board the opposite party again did not turn up. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist was that the trial court did not apply its mind to the contents of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the revisionist. He did not express anything as to whether he was satisfied with the reasons given in the affidavit of the opposite party in support of the limitation application and without expressing any reason he allowed the restoration application which was illegal. 5. Apart from the fact that the the opposite party appears always to be very negligent in persuing his suit. I find that the orders passed by the trial court was not at all a specking order. He did not say a word about the affidavit filed by the revisionist. There were two affidavits filed by the parties and as to whether he has satisfied with the contents given in the counter affidavit on behalf of the opposite party and if he did not believe the contents of the affidavit given on behalf of the revisionist or on what grounds he did not believe it. The order only shows that after hearing the parties he just allowed the application without any rhyme or reason. While allowing the restoration application the court must pass a speaking order. The order only shows that after hearing the parties he just allowed the application without any rhyme or reason. While allowing the restoration application the court must pass a speaking order. It must express its satisfaction regarding the grounds given in the restoration application considering full well the affidavits and counter affidavits given by the parties and assessing it well. The order without considering it or without expressing its satisfaction regarding the genuineness or truth of the grounds given in the restoration application is no order in the eyes of law and cannot be allowed to stand. 6. The revision is therefore, allowed and the case is sent back to the trial court for property passing the order after hearing the parties.