JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 24.8.1979 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, rejecting the revision petition and upholding the order of the learned trial court dated 25.4.1977 by which the ex parte decree dated 17.9.1975 was set aside and the case was restored. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The main question for consideration is whether the restoration of the case by the order dated 25.4. 1977 was justified or not and was passed after satisfaction about necessary requirements under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that while deciding a restoration application finding on the question of knowledge was necessary and for deciding limitation too, it was necessary to decide the date when the defendant came to know of the ex parte decree. He argued that none of the two courts below has given any finding on this point while the date of knowledge was essential in view of the restoration application being filed about six and a half months after the ex parte decree he cited a ruling reported in 1977 A.W.R. 137 showing that in case negligence of the party was established, it was not entitled to seek restoration. The learned counsel further argued that in spite of the two affidavits and two depositions by the parties, the learned trial court did not consider the same and the learned Additional Commissioner merely decided the revision petition on the ground of interest of justice and that when the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was under consideration restoration could not be ordered under section 151 C.P.C. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite party has argued that the trial court has considered evidence of both the parties, that the defend ant was working in Delhi and had filed a certificate and produced witnesses also but these were wrongly disbelieved. He further argued that a finding on the existing evidence could be given and that a liberal view about limitation should be taken in view of the ruling cited, reported in 1976 R.D. 216. 5. No doubt, the learned trial court found the evidence of both the parties not worthy of reliance just because the witnesses were either related or had residence at some distance. 5. No doubt, the learned trial court found the evidence of both the parties not worthy of reliance just because the witnesses were either related or had residence at some distance. No doubt, this was no satisfactory reason to discard evidence entirely, the trial court could have shifted evidence with caution and could have based its finding on such evidence which could be relied upon. In any case, the learned trial court did not have jurisdiction to restore the case in the interest of justice when a regular provision under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was there. The same mistake was done by the learned Additional Commissioner also. It is also pertinent to note that no specific finding about the date of knowledge has been given, apart from a mere mention that the defendant had been served by substituted service. Even so, the court's satisfaction was necessary about the knowledge on some particular point of time so that the limitation could be counted from that date. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned trial court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not considering evidence and by not giving a proper finding on the date of knowledge and then only the restoration could be decided. For the same reason, the learned Additional Commissioner also failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by not interfering with the learned trial court's order. 6. Accordingly, I allow this revision petition, set aside the judgments dated 24.8.1979 and 25.4.1977 and remand the restoration application to the learned trial court for deciding afresh in accordance with law.