JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, M. - This revision petition arises out of the order dated February 1, 1977 by the learned Additional Commissioner. Faizabad Division, Faizabad in revision petition against the learned trial court's order dated September 25, 1976 in a case under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The learned Additional Commissioner by the impugned order dismissed the restoration application dated January 4, 1977 and the revision petition was not considered on merits. 2. I have hard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner does not say anything beyond his inability to find it a fit case in which inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 C.P.C. could be exercised to restore a case. This is more or less an arbitrary consideration and because it is no order under Section 151 C.P.C. in the eye of law, not being based on reason and interest of justice either was it must be held that the learned Additional Commissioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. 4. The revision was dismissed in default on December 20, 1976 and a restoration application was filed the same day. This application was dismissed on January 4, 1977 and another application for restoration of the dismissed restoration application was filed the same day. The stand of the revisionist that he had gone to call his counsel and in the meantime the case or application was dismissed in default, has been vindicated by his immediate action same day by filing the restoration application. No ground or proof to the contrary existed. In Indian conditions of rural areas where the resource less village people being ignorant of the technicalities of law necessarily depend on the legal practitioners is most litigations, some allowance of time has to be given in such situations and if cases have been dismissed in default, restoration of applications or cases becomes justified in the interest of justice, if the applications are filed the same day. An inference to the contrary is not likely n very exceptional circumstances duly proved. 5. An inference to the contrary is not likely n very exceptional circumstances duly proved. 5. I, therefore, allow the revision petition, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated February 1, 1977 and seeing no utility of remanding the case to the Additional Commissioner for again hearing the revision just either to reject the revision petition or make a recommendation and since the record is before me, I proceed to consider the revision petition on merits, with reference to order of the learned trial court dated September 25, 1976. 6. The learned counsel for the application has argued that the case under Section 122-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act involved a bona fide question of title since the Gaon Sabha had executed a Patta by resolution dated July 10, 1964 and a rent receipt had been granted. It appears that later the revisionist stated that he has surrendered the possession. The learned trial court considered these as shifting stands of the revisionist. The learned D.G.C. (R.) argued that since the revisionist had voluntarily surrendered possession, the ejectment order should be allowed to stand and damage may not be allowed as per the G.O. No. 8639/75-sa-2884/75 dated September 10, 1975. 7. The above trend of consideration is not legal. I have held in Sheo Prasad v. Gaon Sabha Revision No. 433 of 1979-80 Gonda that Gos. in general and the above mentioned G.O. in particular, does not have the force of law. Further, it is unjudicial thinking that just because unauthorised occupation has been removed, damages for the past unauthorised occupation provided in law should not be imposed. The legal process must end in the logical conclusion. 8. The proper consideration would be, whether there was evidence to show if a bona fide question of title should be deemed as raised, and then, if no such question was raised, to decided the matter of ejectment and damages. In the instant case, there is surely some evidence showing a bona fide question of title. Action under Section 122-B (4-B) of the Act was necessary. Convenience based on shifting situations cannot decide the legal course and the court had no power to order ejectment or damages or otherwise, once the proceedings had to be stayed and opportunity allowed under Section 122-B(4-B) of the Act. 9. Action under Section 122-B (4-B) of the Act was necessary. Convenience based on shifting situations cannot decide the legal course and the court had no power to order ejectment or damages or otherwise, once the proceedings had to be stayed and opportunity allowed under Section 122-B(4-B) of the Act. 9. Accordingly, I also allow the revision against the order of the learned trial court dated September 25, 1976, set aside the order dated September 25. 1976, and remand the case to the learned trial court to take action under Section 122-B(4-B) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and depending on the result to decide the case further in accordance with law.