JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This is a reference dated 2-9-1971 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, recommending that the order of the trial court dated 3-2-1971 be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned D.G.C. (R) for the Gaon Sabha and have also perused the record. 3. By the impugned order the learned trial court had set aside the decree passed on 31-5-1969 against the Gaon Sabha in a suit u/s 229-B or the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act on the basis of an admission by the Pradhan in favour of the plaintiff made on 24-4-1969 and a compromise by Ram Kumar defendant number 1 filed the same day. The learned Additional Commissioner held that the application for setting aside the decree was not maintainable as Bajrangi applicant had not been authorised by a resolution of Gaon Sabha the order under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., could not be passed as it was not an ex-parte decree and the application was time barred. The learned counsel for the applicant has also argued these points and further that Section 151 C.P.C. was mentioned in the application just to avoid limitation. However, if it was so, the learned counsel could not deny the applicability of Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. seeking relief under alternative provisions meant that in case Order IX Rule 13 was not found applicable, relief may be granted u/s 151 C.P.C. in the interest of justice. 4. Bajrangi, a member of the Land Management Committee, came up with the allegations that the decree had been obtained by collusion of the Pradhan, that he came to know of the decree during consolidation proceeding and a meeting of L.M.C. was called in which he was authorised to file the application Bajrangi also filed an affidavit about being authorised by the Gaon Sabha. No counter-affidavit was filed by Janardhan plaintiff. The learned D.G.C. (R) has argued that in these circumstances, the trial court rightly relied on the affidavit and the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner that the application was not maintainable for want of resolution of the Gaon Sabha cannot be upheld. No counter-affidavit was filed by Janardhan plaintiff. The learned D.G.C. (R) has argued that in these circumstances, the trial court rightly relied on the affidavit and the finding of the learned Additional Commissioner that the application was not maintainable for want of resolution of the Gaon Sabha cannot be upheld. He further argued that the facts about the resolution of the Gaon Sabha and affidavit filed with the restoration application dated 21-9-1970, having been suit to the D.G.C. along with the copy of the restoration application by mistake as narrated in the subsequent application dated 4-11-1970 should also be taken into consideration. In the restoration application, full facts are narrated that the plaintiff Janardhan is the nephew of the Pradhan, Vijay Kumar and the defendant number 1 Ram Kumar is the brother of Pradhan and thus the suit was got decreed by collusion of the parties and Pradhan to declare sirdari on plot no. 1/1/3 area 3.64 acres which is a TALAB on spot. There are also allegations of forger of extract khatauni 1374-76F by the Pradhan. In the restoration application the notice could not be served on both parties and publication of notice in paper had to be resorted to. In the circumstance, the application could not be rejected as not maintainable just on the objection of Janardha that there was no resolution. There is no counter-affidavit by Janardan that there was no resolution of the Gaon Sabha. 5. It is further argued by the D.G.C. (R) that the admission of the Pradhan in the suit was without any permission from the Assistant Collector in-charge of the sub-division, as required under Rule 110-A(2) of the U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules, and no decree could be passed on such admission. He further argued that the Gaon Sabha litigation will be a matter of resolution of the L.M.C. and shall not depend upon the individual discretion of the Pradhan, vide para 128 of the Gaon Sabha and L.M.C. Manual. Under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the Pradhan is fully bound under Rules 110-A(2) and 110-AAA, and cannot freely use his discretion in Gaon Sabha litigation's. 6. Under the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, the Pradhan is fully bound under Rules 110-A(2) and 110-AAA, and cannot freely use his discretion in Gaon Sabha litigation's. 6. This brings us to the question whether the application could be deemed under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C. or u/s 151 of C.P.C. The learned trial court had held that the L.L.C. had not been informed and so the decree passed on 31-5-1969 was an exparte decree which could be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. However, even though the Pradhan colluded with the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the defendant who all belonged to one group, his presence in the court amounted to information to the L.M.C. as the Pradhan is authorised to receive notices on behalf of the L.M.C. So, technically, the learned Additional Commissioner may be right in holding that the L.M.C. was informed. But the learned Additional Commissioner could not hold that is was not an exparte order as no proper legal representative of the L.M.C. was present. 7. The fact remains that in Gaon Sabha litigation, the interest of the L.M.C. or the Gaon Sabha is to be safe-guarded and not the interest of the Pradhan who may be in collusion with other parties and that is why the law has not left any discretion with the Pradhan to make admission or to contest the case. The learned D.G.C. (R) has rightly argued that the Gaon Sabha litigation is essentially a matter of resolution of the L.M.C. and in this aspect of the case, without having put the matter before the L.M.C. and obtaining its resolution as to contest the suit or make admission or withdraw, the Pradhan did not represent the L.M.C. In other words, he was not a proper legal representative of the L.M.C. in the absence of any directions or resolution from the L.M.C. The principle is clear that a Pradhan without instructions from the L.M.C. is no proper legal representative of the L.M.C. 8. It may be observed that, in the instant case, the Pradhan had not informed the L.M.C. of the exparte order dated 31-5-1969, of the learned trial court considered the absence of the L.M.C. according to real situation, and rightly deemed it to be an exparte order. It may be observed that, in the instant case, the Pradhan had not informed the L.M.C. of the exparte order dated 31-5-1969, of the learned trial court considered the absence of the L.M.C. according to real situation, and rightly deemed it to be an exparte order. It is felt that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner cannot be upheld in view of the above consideration. Apart from this, the facts of the case clearly indicated a situation which would call for use of the inherent powers of the court u/s 151 C.P.C., but the provision under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. being available, it was utilised for setting aside the exparte decree. 9. For consideration of the question of limitation, period must be counter from the date of knowledge to the L.M.C Even though the L.M.C. may be technically deemed informed of the date, the Pradhan had not informed the L.M.C. of the result of the litigation i.e., the ex-parte decree of 31-5-1969. It may be observed that the Pradhan is not the legal representative or attorney of the L.M.C. and the latter is not bound by the actions of the Pradhan even to its disadvantage. Hence no such presumption is possible that the information of the exparte decree to the Pradhan amounted to information of the L.M.C. The Pradhan Gaon Sabha cannot be deemed equivalent to L.M.C., which being the necessary party, was neither present through proper representation nor had any knowledge of the exparte decree. For this reason, the application dated 21-9-1970 could not be deemed to be time-barred. The explanation for delay given in the affidavit of Bajrangi in the absence of any counter-affidavit, had to be accepted and the application was rightly deemed to be within limitation. 10. As discussed above, the revision application on all the three points mentioned by the learned Additional Commissioner fails and the recommendation is liable to be rejected. The reference is not accepted and the revision petition being without force, is hereby dismissed with costs.