JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member - This reference has been sent to the Board by the Addl. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, through which he has recommended that the order of the trial court be set aside and the case be remanded back to the trial court for passing a speaking order. Against it an objection was filed on behalf of the opposite parties. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well the learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the record. 3. The facts giving rise to this revision are that revisionist Gopi Chand had filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the opposite parties. Manphool Singh and others. This suit was decreed ex parte by the trial court by the ex parte decree was set aside on the application of Manphool Singh and others. Gopi Chand feeling aggrieved filed a revision and the Additional Commissioner recommended to the Board that the revision be allowed and the ex parte decree be maintained. The Board, however, did not accept this recommendation and sent back the case to the trial court for reconsidering the application for setting aside the ex parte decree after allowing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if any. The parties did not adduce any evidence before the trial court and filed only their affidavits. After considering these affidavits the trial court set aside the ex parte decree on payment of Rs. 8/- as cost. Gopi Chand preferred a revision against the order of the trial court and the Additional Commissioner in that revision has recommended to the Board that the order passed by the trial court be set aside and the case be remanded back to it for passing a speaking order. 4. In my opinion it is sheer abuse of process of law to remand the case over and over again to the trial court far passing orders in respect of application given for setting aside the ex parte decree. The Board has once sent back the case to the trial court for passing orders on the said application and the trial court after perusing the evidence before it passed an order, setting aside the ex parte decree subject to payment of cost. It is true that the order of the trial court is not very happily worded. The Board has once sent back the case to the trial court for passing orders on the said application and the trial court after perusing the evidence before it passed an order, setting aside the ex parte decree subject to payment of cost. It is true that the order of the trial court is not very happily worded. It has not recorded a finding of the satisfaction that he was satisfied with the grounds given in the application and affidavit of Manphool Singh and others that there existed circumstances to allow the said application but nevertheless the order cannot be brushed aside only because of it. The very fact that the trial court set aside the ex parte decree conveys that he was satisfied with the allegation made in the application of Manphool and others that there were sufficient grounds which prevented them to appear as they had no notice for it. Under these circumstances the satisfaction of the court obviously has got to be inferred even though in so many words it has not been recorded by the trial court and it does not require any revisional interference as it intends to promote justice allowing either of the parties to litigate their title freely. Manphool Singh and others are minors and the courts has a duty upon it to safeguard their interest. The service was effected upon them through Smt. Ramkali their mother but the record shows that no proper service was effected on her and by mode of refusal it was pressed to be served upon her. Under the circumstances the trial court had rightly set aside the ex parte decree and it does not call for any revisional interference because no prejudice is caused to either party. For the reasons given above the reference sent by the Additional Commissioner cannot be accepted. 5. The reference is accordingly rejected. The order of the trial court setting aside the ex parte decree is maintained. The file be sent back to the trial court for proceeding with the suit after allowing proper opportunities to the parties.