JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This is a revision petition by Bechan plaintiff revisionist against the judgment and order dated 1.10.1980 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, allowing the appeal and remanding the restoration application for further hearing. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and have also perused the record. The opposite party did not appear in spite of due service by registered post. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the suit was decreed ex parte on 27.9.1977 and Mst. Shankara defendant filed a restoration application on 26.2.1979 which was rejected by the learned trial court after full consideration of facts and on giving a finding that the defendant had full knowledge of the litigation and intentionally avoided to find out the date of appearance in the court. In the first appeal, the learned Addl. Commissioner has observed that the notice had not been served on the defendant personally and the case was decided ex parte after publication of notice in the newspaper and since the defendant was an uneducated and poor woman, it was in the interest of justice to restore the case. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the ingredients required to be considered in the enquiry under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. were not considered by the learned first appellate court nor did he reverse 'the finding in respect of the knowledge of the defendant. He argued that without reversing this finding, the order of the learned trial court could not be set aside. He further argued that publication in a news-paper does not change the legal position if there is otherwise knowledge to the defendant proved by evidence. There were four affidavits supporting the fact of knowledge to the defendant which were not considered by the learned Additional Commissioner but were duly considered by the learned trial court before giving his finding. In support, he cited a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1970 Alld. 525 5. Non-consideration of evidence by the learned Additional Commissioner is a sufficient ground for interference in revision for by such avoidance of consideration the first appellate Court committed material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. It was revealed in evidence that Mst. In support, he cited a ruling reported in A.I.R. 1970 Alld. 525 5. Non-consideration of evidence by the learned Additional Commissioner is a sufficient ground for interference in revision for by such avoidance of consideration the first appellate Court committed material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. It was revealed in evidence that Mst. Shankara had no intention to contest the suit since she admitted the long continuing possession of Bechan but subsequently on being provoked by the interested persons, she filed the restoration application just for causing harassment to the plaintiff. 6. The ground given by the learned first appellate court that since the defendant is an urn educated and poor woman it would be just to set aside the ex parte decree and afford her opportunity of hearing, is too brief consideration of the case and also too insufficient ground to allow the appeal. The finding by the learned trial Court regarding knowledge to the defendant of the litigation remains unshaken and the appeal had to fail. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed, the judgment and order dated 1.10.1980 by the learned first appellate court is set aside and the trial court's order dated 8.2.1980 of rejection of the restoration application is hereby confirmed.