JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated October 29, 1986 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (I), Varanasi Division, Varanasi. The grounds for revision are that the court below committed illegality in the eyes of law in exercising its jurisdiction in dismissing the restoration application on irrelevant consideration unwarranted in law. 2. Brief stated, the facts of the case are as under. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit No. 13 of 1979 under Section 202 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act in the court of the S.D.O. Gyanpur. The suit was decreed on February 21, 1980 and the defendant-revisionists were ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. The defendant-revisionist went in appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner. The appeal was fixed for hearing on November 12, 1984 but it was dismissed in default. On August 26, 1986 the appellant moved an application for restoration of the appeal. On this application, the court passed the orders on October 29, 1986 rejecting the application. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the orders of the learned Additional Commissioner dated October 29, 1986. It appears from the order passed by the court below that the appeal was filed by three plaintiffs on February 27, 1980. The appeal was dismissed and restored many a times. It was ultimately dismissed on August 4, 1986. The learned Additional Commissioner was not satisfied with the reasons assigned for the absence on the date of hearing. According to him, it was not specifically mentioned in the restoration application as to who was ill on the date of hearing. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff also did not file any restoration application. 4. Before examining the contentions made by the counsel for the parties, I would like to point out at the very out-set that the counsel for the opposite party moved an application on November 2, 1987 with the prayer to vacate the stay order dated December 19, 1986. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel Sri S.K. Kulshreshtha did not press the application and desired to be heard on merits. No order, therefore, needs be passed on this application. 5. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel Sri S.K. Kulshreshtha did not press the application and desired to be heard on merits. No order, therefore, needs be passed on this application. 5. Now the question for consideration is whether the learned Additional Commissioner committed any irregularity in not allowing the the application for restoration moved by the revisionist. It appears from his order dated October 29, 1986 that the appeal was dismissed in default more than once and restored later on. This shows that the learned Additional Commissioner had been quite considerate and generous and had no intention to jeopardise the interest of the revisionist. The default made by the appellant was continuous. The court came to the conclusion that the appellant was taking undue advantage of the generosity of the court and so it had no option but to dismiss the appeal in default. In the present case, the learned Additional Commissioner, while rejecting the restoration application, has exercised his jurisdiction on valid grounds. But this principle is not sound as far as the decision of the case on merits is concerned. No doubt, the attitude of the applicant was quite annoying but this fact should not be lost sight of. The court must ensure that so far as possible the case must be decided on merits. 6. In view of the above observations the orders dated October 29, 1986 passed by the court below are, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded to the learned first appellate court for disposal of the case on merits. Parties are directed to appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner on February 25, 1988.