JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakai, Member - This is a reference made by learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 17-7-1982 through which he has recommended that the case be remanded back to the S. D. O. Padrauna for redeciding the restoration application moved by the opposite party Rampat & others dated 7-4-1975. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 3. It appears from the record that a decree in this case had been passed on 1-12-1962 on the alleged admission of the defendant. On 7-4-1975 a restoration application was moved by the defendant alleging that he had no knowledge of the decree or of the suit. It was also contended on his behalf that he had never filed any admission. 4. The plaintiff on the other hand contested the restoration alleging that the defendant had admitted the claim of the plaintiff and, therefore, the decree was passed on the basis of the compromise filed by both the parties. 5. The trial court held that the defendant is a literate person and normally puts his signatures, hence there was no occasion for him to fix his thumb mark on the document of admission. He, therefore, held the document of admission to be forged and accordingly set aside the decree holding it to be ex-parte against the defendant. Plaintiff filed a review application before the same court but was rejected. Then he went up in revision challenging both the orders i.e., about the restoration and the rejection of the review petition. 6 The learned Additional Commissioner has made a recommendation to this court to remand the case for the hearing of the restoration application in the light of Section 5 (2) of the C. H. Act. 7. I do not agree with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner for deciding the restoration application merely for the provisions of C.H. Act because such applications are not effected even after promulgation of the notification of Section 4 C.H. Act. Restoration applications are totally independent of the enforcement of the C.H. Act and they can be heard and decided without bearing any effect to the C. H. Act. However it is apparent that both the parties did not produce any evidence before the trial court fit support of or against the restoration application. Restoration applications are totally independent of the enforcement of the C.H. Act and they can be heard and decided without bearing any effect to the C. H. Act. However it is apparent that both the parties did not produce any evidence before the trial court fit support of or against the restoration application. As a matter of fact when the compromise deed bore the L.T.I. of the defendant it could not be difficult for him to have send his own admitted L.T.I. for comparison with that existing on the compromise deed and in that event they could have had reliable evidence before the court whether the L.T.I. on the compromise belonged to the defendant or not. Apart from this no other evidence also was led by either of the parties. The trial court, therefore, decided the restoration application without the help of any material evidence. In these circumstances the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside and the restoration application has to be sent back to it for re-decision after giving full opportunity to both the parties to produce evidence. The revision is, therefore, allowed and the order of the trial court dated 19-7-1976 and 11-4-1979 are set aside and the case is sent back to the trial court for disposing of the restoration application dated 7-4-1975 moved by the defendant Rampat in the light of the observations made above. The case shall be disposed of expeditiously within six months from the date of the receipt of the records.