JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the judgment of learned additional commissioner dated 25-10-1983 by which he dismissed the revision and upheld the judgment of the trial court dated 3-4-1981 by which the trial court rejected the application filed by revisionist Smt. Raj Murat Kunwar. 2. Heard the learned counsels and perused the file. 3. The suit under Section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act was filed by Smt. Raj Murat Kunwar. In that suit one person named Shiv applied for impleadment as party. His application was allowed and 19-12-1980 was fixed for filing written statement. 4. It so happened that on 19-12-1980 plaintiff did not appear, hence the court dismissed the suit in default. One application for setting aside the order dated 19-12-1980 was filed by the plaintiff on 15-1-1981 under Section 151 C.P.C. 5. This application was rejected by the trial court on 3-4-1981 holding that the suit could be dismissed in default even though the case was fixed for written statement and it was not the error of the court. The learned, additional commissioner followed the same reasoning and dismissed the revision on 25-10-1983. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that no order for dismissing the suit in default can be passed when the date was fixed for filing written statement, hence the order dated 19-12-1980 was not an order in accordance with law and the application only could have been filed under Section 151 C.P.C. He has further argued that order rejecting that application is not only erroneous but is improper exercise of jurisdiction vested in the court. On these reasons he challenged the orders of both the courts below. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that no revision can be filed against an order passed under Section 151 of C.P.C. It is further contended by him that even if the revision is entertained the order cannot be interfered even if it is wrong on the question of fact or on the question of law. 8. So far as the position of law is concerned there could not be two opinions that there is revisional jurisdiction. 8. So far as the position of law is concerned there could not be two opinions that there is revisional jurisdiction. The question of law and error of fact can not be entertained but it has not been shown by the learned counsel by any ruling that no revision could be fixed against the judgment in application filed under Section 151 C. P. C. Hence the first contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party has got no importance so far as the second contention is concerned it has got its own importance but it has got no relevance in the present case. 9. Admittedly the date 19-12-1980 was fixed for filing written statement. The court has to act in accordance with law and procedure prescribed by the statutes. When the date is fixed for written statement it was the duty of the court to accept the written statement if filed or to fix any date which is in accordance with law. There is no provision for dismissing the suit in default on that date. In other words what was the default of the plaintiff due to which the suit could have been dismissed. The plaintiff had nothing to do on that date. Hence the order passed as "suit is dismissed in default" is without jurisdiction and it cannot be said that order in default has been passed in accordance with law. Although several rulings were cited by both the parties but in my opinion there is no point in referring the rulings because either the principle laid down is accepted principle of law or they are in no way directly applicable in the present case. 10. Hence the order dated 3-4-1981 passed by the trial court is based on irrelevant considerations. It was not to be seen whether it was the mistake of the court or of the party but the main question was whether the court had jurisdiction to pass that order or not. In the same way the learned Additional Commissioner has also based his finding on irrelevant consideration. The order given on irrelevant consideration is jurisdictional error. 11. It was not to be seen whether it was the mistake of the court or of the party but the main question was whether the court had jurisdiction to pass that order or not. In the same way the learned Additional Commissioner has also based his finding on irrelevant consideration. The order given on irrelevant consideration is jurisdictional error. 11. Now the question of remand of the case for deciding the restoration application may arise, but in my opinion when the fact of the case are placed before this court and there is no new fact of evidence as required to be produced by the parties, the same can be decided by this court. The facts speak for themselves. 12. I, therefore, allow the revision. Set aside the judgment of the Additional Commissioner dated 25-10-1983 and of trial court dated 3-4-1981. On the reason given above instead of remanding the case for rehearing of the application filed on 15-1-1981 I allow the same. The order dated 19-12-1980 cannot be retained even for a moment, hence that order is also set aside. 13. The case is sent back to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law. Under the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.