JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member- -These two references arise out of two revision petitions by Ram Abhilakh before the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, who had recommended that the orders of the learned trial court dated 21-2-1976 and 26-5-1976 may be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the record. None appeared for the opposite party in spite of notice. 3. The facts are simple. In the trial court, in a case under Section 229-B of the UPZA & LR Act, Ram Abhilakh defendant was absent on 26-12-1975 when the order to proceed against him ex parte was passed. However, he appeared on 21-2-1976 and filed the written statement which was not allowed to be filed by the trial court's order dated 21-2-1976. Thereafter, Ram Abhilakh moved the court for setting aside the order dated 26-12-1975 but this was also dismissed as time-barred. 4. The learned counsel has argued that both the orders by the learned trial court were against the basic concept of equity and justice. The trial court passed the order dated 21-2-1976 refusing to accept the written statement of Ram Abhilakh just because a formal application for setting aside the order dated 26-12-1975 was not made. When the defendant appeared and wanted a hearing and to file the written statement, the trial court need not have acted in a way as to deny opportunity of hearing just for the sake of a formal application. The trial court did have jurisdiction to allow filing of the written statement, at the same time, setting aside his earlier order dated 25-12-1975. That order was merely to ward off any further delay in case Ram Abhilakh has not appeared. I, therefore, do not agree with the learned Additional Commissioner, that this order dated 21-2-1976 did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction. In my considered view, this order must go. The subsequent order of the learned trial court, again refusing opportunity of hearing to Ram Abhilakh on similar considerations cannot be justified. The first denial of opportunity had occurred on 21-2-1976 and thereafter the trial court should not have taken recourse of technicality that even a formal application for setting aside the order dated 26 12-1975 was time-barred. In fact, nothing should stand before the trial court in the way of permitting a genuine opportunity of hearing. The first denial of opportunity had occurred on 21-2-1976 and thereafter the trial court should not have taken recourse of technicality that even a formal application for setting aside the order dated 26 12-1975 was time-barred. In fact, nothing should stand before the trial court in the way of permitting a genuine opportunity of hearing. In this subsequent order also, I find a failure in exercise of jurisdiction by the trial court. 5. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are allowed and the orders of the trial court dated 21-2-1976 and 26-5-1976 are set aside and the cases are remanded to the trial court for further hearing in accordance with law after permitting revisionist to file his written statement. This order will govern reference Nos. 798 and 799 of 1977-78 Sultanpur.