JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This revision petition was filed against the judgment and decree dated 3-9-1975 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, confirming the order dated 1-5-1975 by the learned trial court rejecting restoration application after the final decree in a case under Section 229-B/76 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. After the preliminary decree became final, there is no use challenging the share of the plaintiff Mahabir Singh at this stage of finalisation of lots. 4. As regards opportunity to file objection, the defendant/revisionist himself did not file any objection on 20-1-1975, again failed to do so on extended date 30-1-75 or even on the next date 20-2-1975 when lots were made final. The record does not show that even though the presiding officer was not there the defendant had filed any objection, which could no doubt, be considered on 20.2.1975. There is no allegation that the defendant filed the objection on 30.1.1975 or 20.2.1975 but it was not accepted or not admitted. There is no law that even if the party had presented objection on 20-2-1975 it could be rejected as time-barred or otherwise. 5. It is a misconception that the procedure provides spoon-feeding to the parties. No specific order is required before any logical next step is taken by any party. Here, I also differ from the learned Additional Commissioner who observed that since 20-2-1975 was not fixed for filing objection, the objection could not be filed on that date. The fact is that no objection was at all filed either on 30-1-1975 or on 20-2-1975 before the finalisation of lots. If objection had been presented on 20-2-1975 before any order was passed by the court presuming no objection filed, I cannot conceive the trial court refusing to consider the objection or rejecting it and finalising the lots. It simply does not happen. No objection from the defendant has been revealed so far. The default is entirely of the defendant and no excuse can help. 6. In the circumstances, I find no failure to exercise jurisdiction on any illegality in it, by the learned trial court in rejecting the restoration application or by the learned Additional Commissioner in rejecting the appeal. 7. This revision petition is found to be without force and is hereby dismissed with costs.