JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated November 24, 1972, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the trial court's order dated December 29, 1971, setting aside the ex parte decree dated April 23, 1970, may be set aside and the restoration application be sent back to the trial court for deciding afresh after proper enquiry. 2. The applicant is absent in spite of due notice and propose to decide the reference on merits. I have perused the record. 3. The order of the learned trial court dated December 29, 1971 has given full details of the case and it is obvious that it was a collusive decree based on fake admission by Shobha defendant who had no locus standi as the plots in suit were recorded in the correct Khatauni 1378-1380 F. as Pokhari and Dih. Shabha was admitted as defendant on the basis of forged Khatauni extract showing Shobha recorded on the plots. The plaintiff did not controvert the allegation of D.G.C. that the entry of Shobha in the extract filed by the plaintiff was Farzi and it did not require order of the court to justify his stand, he had to rebut the allegation in the restoration application himself, in bis own interest. Hence the case was fully made out as to fraud played on the court and the learned trial court rightly acted under Section 151 of the C.P.C. I find the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner based on flimsy grounds and see no reason to allow the revision. 4. In fact, the service on the former Pradhan Buniyadi, who had already submitted his resignation, should not have been considered sufficient by the trial court, for it is the L.M.C. which is the legal representative of the Gaon Sabha and not the Pradhan. The Pradhan is, no doubt, authorised to receive notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha L.M.C. with the understanding that the L.M.C.'s instructions would be, sought as provided in para 128 of the Gaon Sabha and L.M.C. Manual. The Pradhan is, no doubt, authorised to receive notice on behalf of the Gaon Sabha L.M.C. with the understanding that the L.M.C.'s instructions would be, sought as provided in para 128 of the Gaon Sabha and L.M.C. Manual. As such, normally service of notice on the Pradhan may be considered sufficient but in special circumstances where it is found that L.M.C. was not duly informed as was in the instant case, the service must be deemed deficient, constituting a reasonable ground for setting aside the ex parte decree so deemed because the Gaon Sabha or its legal representative the L.M.C. vide Section 122-A(1) and (2) (b) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act did not have information. It is just that the Gaon Sabha/L.M.C. should not suffer for the lapse of their functionary in the person of Pradhan who is only a limited Pairokar and Pradhan who may resign or collude with the other party and not inform the Gaon Sabha/L.M.C. In this view of the matter, the learned trial court would be justified in passing the order dated December 29, 1971 on the application of the new Pradhan, Mirhoo as well, on the ground of want of knowledge pleaded by him. 5. As discussed above, the reference is liable to be rejected. The revision petition is found to be without force and is dismissed with costs.