JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated 14.4.1978, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the trial court's order dated 21.12.1976 by which restoration application dated 14.11.1969 was allowed may beset aside, since the plaintiff had not been allowed opportunity to file evidence against the allegations of the defendant-opposite-party. 2. The applicant was not present in spite of due notice and 1 propose to decide the reference on merits. I have perused the record. 3. The ground for the recommendation is fantastic. Except for the period from 25.4.1970 to 9.7.1971 during which the restoration application remained dismissed in default, the plaintiff did have ample opportunity upto the date of impugned order i.e., 21.12.1976, to produce whatever evidence he wanted to adduce, against the main allegations of the defendants that they never engaged any counsel, nor filed any compromise. When the plaintiff/revisionists did not avail the period of several years to file any evidence, it cannot be said that opportunity was denied to them. It is not the duty of the learned trial court to thrust an opportunity for every purpose in the hearing of a miscellaneous application, when there is the demand for such opportunity. The procedure, too, provides nothing more than an opportunity of hearing. The question of providing specific date for specific purpose, not otherwise provided in the procedure, arises only on a request being made and if considered necessary. 4. It is noticed that the learned Additional Commissioner has given detailed chronological account of the proceedings in para 3 of his order. Instead of producing evidence against the allegations, after the restoration application was restored on 9.7.1971, the plaintiff chose to go in for revision and the period upto 4.8.1973 was consumed till its dismissal. The plaintiff was present on 16.4.1974 and there were several dates before the order dated 21.12.1976 was passed but the plaintiff neither produced any documentary or oral evidence on any date, nor prayed for any date to be fixed for the specific purpose and for issue of summons to any witnesses including any expert to prove the thumb impressions of the defendants 1st set on the compromise in dispute. 5. 5. I also find that the so-called, compromise was signed by Mukhtar Chhangu Ram, counsel for the defendants Phagu and Sagar who put their thumb impressions on the compromise, but strangely enough, the Mukhtar had no authority to sign for defendants first set his Vakalatnama is not there. The restoration application filed on 14.11.19 69 was accompanied by an affidavit dated 31.10.1969. Sagar and Phagu on 8.6.1971, applied for enquiry through expert to confirm the allegation that the thumb-impressions on the compromise were ferzi and filed an affidavit dated 8.6.1971 in support. The plaintiff did not even tile any affidavit in rebuttal. So, the presumption must be of the correctness of the allegations. The learned trial court set aside the decree based on fraudulent compromise and in this he has not failed in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in him. An additional ground considered by the learned trial court in support of the restoration, does not create any irregularity or illegality. It remains a mystery as to why the main allegations of the defendant and the suspicious conduct of the plaintiffs, fake defendants and their supposed counsel and also the court who passed the one sentence composite order on the back of the fake compromise, simultaneously restoring the suit and decreeing it on 28.7.1969 were not further inquired into. But on the facts already revealed, I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the order of the learned trial court dated 21.12.1976. 6. Accordingly, the reference is rejected and the revision petition being without force, is dismissed with costs. 7. Since the revisionist himself has stated in para 5 of his revision petition that the village has come under consolidation proceedings, the learned trial court will, no doubt, consider abatement of the suit u/s 5 (21 of the UPCH Act after verification of the position. The records of the lower courts be returned without delay.