JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - There are 7 connected references and only one order has been passed in all cases, hence they are decided jointly here also, this order will govern all these references. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 3. These are 7 connected references made by learned Additional Commissioner on 20-11-1976 for allowing the revisions, setting aside the order of the lower court and remanding the case for hearing the application on the basis of observations made. He has based his finding mainly on two points. Firstly, no reason has been given by the trial court for setting aside that order. Secondly, the oral evidence produced by the parties has not been discussed. 4. The facts of the case that there were suits under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. The suits were filed by Smt. Leelawati and Smt. Pyari against Kalika defendants set no. 1 and Sudarshan and others fora declaration that they may be declared as co-bhumidhar along with defendant no. 2 i.e. Sudarshan & others. It is also prayed that set no. 1 i.e. Kalika had no interest, compromise was filed on 30-12-1972 by Kalika Pandey. It was a compromise between the plaintiff and Kalika Pandey whose right was going to be affected. On the basis of this compromise an order was passed on 10-4-1973 and the suit was decided in the terms of compromise and ex parte against the absentee defendants. It will not be out of place to mention here that the opposite party Kashi Nath was not a party in the suit. 5. Restoration application was filed by Kashi Nath on 12-12-1974 with the allegation that he was one of the sons of Kalika Pandey who is defendant no. 1 in the suit. Defendant no. 1 Kalika and the plaintiffs (wives of Kashis brothers) deliberately not made him (i.e. Kashi Nath) party just to prejudice his right and the decree was obtained behind his back. The application was accompanied with affidavit. On 14-3-1975 objection was filed by Leelawati and Piyariya. The objection is not accompanied with affidavit. 1 in the suit. Defendant no. 1 Kalika and the plaintiffs (wives of Kashis brothers) deliberately not made him (i.e. Kashi Nath) party just to prejudice his right and the decree was obtained behind his back. The application was accompanied with affidavit. On 14-3-1975 objection was filed by Leelawati and Piyariya. The objection is not accompanied with affidavit. The learned counsel for the objector has pointed out that his affidavit has not been controverted by counter affidavit; but this argument has no substance because the parties have already produced evidence and examined witnesses on oath, hence the importance of affidavit decreases and the case is to be decided on the basis of the evidence produced and the witnesses examined on oath. But this has not been done by the trial court while passing the order in allowing the restoration application. 6. The relevant order of the trial court dated 24-7-1976 is based on only one fact that Kalika had 3 sons including Kashi Nath and Kashi Nath was not made party and, therefore, his claim was ignored. When he came to know about this order, he filed the application and, therefore, the trial court allowed the restoration application. It will not be out of place to mention here that the officer has not discussed be points raised by the applicant and by the objection filed by the plaintiff-opposite parties. Moreover it has not discussed, as mentioned above, the oral evidence produced by the parties. It appears that the trial court is led away by the fact that the claim of the applicant Kashi Nath was being ignored on the basis of that compromise, hence he allowed the application. 7. The learned counsel Sri Triveni Shankar for the objector (Kashi Nath) has argued that in the interest of justice the case should be heard and decided on merits and the view of the court should be inclined towards it as observed by Supreme Court in Raji Das v. Mohan Singh, 1978 Allahabad Rent Cases page 496. The relevant sentence of the ruling cited above is that the Courts discretion should be exercised in favour of hearing and not shut out hearing. The other ruling relied by him is Smt. Sona Devi v. D.D.C., 1982 R.D. page 189 in which. It is held that it is conducive in the interest of justice that dispute between the parties should be decided on merits. The other ruling relied by him is Smt. Sona Devi v. D.D.C., 1982 R.D. page 189 in which. It is held that it is conducive in the interest of justice that dispute between the parties should be decided on merits. 8. There cannot be two opinion about the observations made by the Honble Supreme Court or the High Court in the above noted cases. But here the case is different. Such discretion is to be exercised when there are parties and the 'lis' between the parties is going to be decided. Here the person (i.e. Kashi Nath who has moved restoration application is not a party. He is interested in setting aside decree passed between the parties. The court has to discuss on this point how in the life time of the father his sons can get interest in the property. It is to be seen whether he is an aggrieved party or not or whether he can file such application or not. If this is decided in affirmative, then the question from where he got the knowledge; and then after receiving the knowledge he immediately took the steps for filing the restoration application should be discussed. But nothing has been done by the trial court in this respect and the order dated 24.7.1976 is silent on these points. 9. The pharase "in the interest of justice" is not confined of one thing. It is a broad principle which has got to be applied on different occasions at different time. The interest of justice is not only that the case should be decided on merits after hearing the parties and discarding regulations and other rules prescribed for the disposal of matters involved in the case. Interest of justice' principle is applicable at every stage on the judicial proceeding and it should be composed with whenever it is required. 10. The hearing of the parties means the hearing of that man also whose right is going to be affected and the hearing of the rights of the person who is wrongly, if so, encroaching upon the rights of other person. The hearing does not only mean hearing oral or written argument on merits but the hearing includes discussing of the evidence produced by the parties at every stage of the case, otherwise the very term hearing is irrelevant. 11. The learned counsel for the objector Mr. The hearing does not only mean hearing oral or written argument on merits but the hearing includes discussing of the evidence produced by the parties at every stage of the case, otherwise the very term hearing is irrelevant. 11. The learned counsel for the objector Mr. Triveni Shanker has further argued that the question whether the compromise decree is maintainable or not has not been seen or looked into and according to him that compromise decree. Is not maintainable, hence the restoration application should be allowed. But firstly this point is not in consideration at this stage. When the restoration application is going to be decided, the application is to be decided on merits. Secondly, this point will involve who can pay for setting aside such a compromise decree and this is not the stage when it can be discussed or raised. On the other hand as the point has been argued it is held that the merit of the compromise decree is not to be discussed in the restoration application. 12. The trial court has to decide the restoration application of Kashi objections raised by other parties. The oral evidence produced by the parties had also not been discussed. The right of Kashi Nath (being a stranger to decree) to file such application is to be discussed. But trial court instead of deciding the restoration application on merit, decided it on legal irrelevant considerations. Hence 'in the interest of justice' for the proper compliance of phrase hearing the case is to be remanded. 13. On the grounds given above, the order of the trial court dated 24-7-1976 is not tenable for a moment, I accept the reference made by Additional Commissioner and set aside the order dated 24-7-1976 and remand the cases for hearing again the restoration application on the basis of the observations made above and in accordance with law. Costs easy.