JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated February 3, 1975, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision petition be allowed and the order of the learned trial court dated Aug, 24, 1974, setting aside the ex parte decree against the Gaon Sabha dated September 27, 1971 may 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. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the case was not decided ex parte as the D.G.C. was there, representing the Gaon Sabha and the State. He further argued that there was no fraud. The suit was decided not on the statement of the Pradhan alone but on all other evidence adduced. The learned D.G.C. (R.) has argued that no meeting of the L.M.C. had been held before the ex parte decree about this litigation and the L.M.C. was not informed by the Pradhan. Although the statement of the Pradhan does not amount to admission by the Gaon Sabha of the claim of the plaintiff, it did not create a misconception in the mind of the trial court that it was an admission by the Gaon Sabha, as is clear from reading the judgment dated September 27, 1971. Secondly, it makes it evident that the Pradhan acted against the interest of the Gaon Sabha, did not get anyone else authorised by the L.M.C. to conduct the litigation, thus keeping the Gaon Sabha in dark and without knowledge of litigation and ex parte decree and also led the trial court to believe that the Gaon Sabha was represented but did not contest. That is clearly a fraud on the court, jointly by the plaintiff and the Pradhan Gaon Sabha. The collusion of the Pradhan Dalsinear of the Gaon Sabha and the plaintiff is also evident from the conduct of the Pradhan. 4. The same consideration apply to the D.G.C. also. He could not withdraw after filing the written statement on behalf of the Stale, signed. In the Collector, without a written order by the Collector that the State no longer wanted to contest the case. 4. The same consideration apply to the D.G.C. also. He could not withdraw after filing the written statement on behalf of the Stale, signed. In the Collector, without a written order by the Collector that the State no longer wanted to contest the case. He did not act in good faith by not producing any D.W. or document in support of issue number 2, whether the land in suit is the property of the Gaon Sabha, for he never informed the trial court the State was admitting the claim of the plaintiff. His filing the memo of appearance saying that he appeared for the Gaon Sabha, without really having any instructions from the Gaon Sabha was an act otherwise than in good faith. 5. When the Gaon Sabha has no knowledge of litigation and even the ex parte decree, and the L.M.C. has neither considered the matter of this litigation, nor passed any resolution prior to the ex part decree, the presence of mere agents of the Gaon Sabha like Pradhan and D.G.C. who must act only under instructions of the L.M.C. as provided in para 128 of the Gaon Sabha and Land Management Committee Manual, cannot be taken as presence of the Gaon Sabha which is the real party and the decree has to be held ex parte against the Gaon Sabha. 6. Fraud on the court is established as soon as it is established that the trial court was made to believe, through the collusion of and connivance between the plaintiff and the Pradhan Gaon Sabha that the Gaon Sabha has been duly served and is being represented and the trial court passes a decree in the impression when the Gaon Sabha has throughout no knowledge of the litigation and has not been given any opportunity to express its intention to contest the suit. 7. It has been argued further that the trial court has not given a finding that the fraud was made out. The order dated Aug. 24, 1974 however, in spite of being brief, leaves no doubt that the trial court found the fraud proved and passed the order under Section 151 C.P.C. as well as under order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. In view of the detailed discussion above, the trial court committed no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise op jurisdiction vested in it. 8. 8. Accordingly, the reference is not acceptable and the revision petition being without force, is dismissed with costs.