JUDGMENT R.S. Varma, M. - The facts necessary for the appreciation of the case are as follows : Tribeni and others filed a suit against the defendant under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 25-5-1960 and it was decreed ex-parte on 30-8-1961. Ram Karan and Ram Narain, defendants, filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and this application was dismissed in default on 16-(sic)-1962. Then, on 21-8-1974, Shaballi, defendant, filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and against that application an objection was filed by the plaintiff. This application of Shaballi, defendant, was dismissed on 6-5-1974, but was restored on 17-7-1976. Then Santu Yadav, defendant, also filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree and on this application the learned trial court set aside the ex-parte decree dated 30-8-1961 and it also abated the suit by the same order. Against that, a revision was filed. The learned Additional Commissioner was of the view that as the village was under consolidation proceedings on 21-8-1974, when Shaballi had filed the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the revenue court had no jurisdiction to entertain any such application and in support of this view, the learned Additional Commissioner relied on 1977 R.D. page 290. The learned Additional Commissioner was, therefore, of the view that the order of the learned trial court was illegal as it had no jurisdiction to pass that order. He has referred this case to this Board with the recommendation that the revision be allowed and the order of the trial court be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The correct position of law is that application for setting aside the ex parte decree can be entertained during consolidation proceedings Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act cannot be a bar in such cases because at the time of the filing of such applications no suit or proceedings is pending in the court. Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act will also be not a bar as a mere reading of the that section will disclose. Applications under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code are not given for the purpose of adjudicating the title of the parties in any land, but are given only for by a court earlier. Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act will also be not a bar as a mere reading of the that section will disclose. Applications under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code are not given for the purpose of adjudicating the title of the parties in any land, but are given only for by a court earlier. If there are grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree, the application must be entertained and must be allowed otherwise great injustice will be caused to the party against whom the ex parte decree will operate as res judicata. 3. I do not agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. The case is sent back to the learned Additional Commissioner for deciding the revision on merits. 4. Judgment signed, dated and pronounced in open court.