JUDGMENT B. Kumar, Member - This revision petition arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional Commissioner Varanasi Division, Varanasi on April 2, 1981 in appeal No. 1 of 1983/Varanasi-Lautan Singh v. Nawal Kishore etc. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Jokhan filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms act against Lotan and others on February 10, 1970 in the court of the S.D.O. Varanasi. The suit was decreed ex-parte on September 16, 1971. On December 14, 1982 Lautan Singh, Shiv Lalloo and Suresh minor under guardianship of Smt. Mankeshara moved an application to set aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that they had no information about the suit pending in the trial court. They knew for the first time on December 14, 1982 about the ex-parte decree. The opposite parties filed objection on September 22, 1983 contending that the summons were properly served on the applicants. The learned trial court rejected the application on September 30, 1983 on the ground that the case was pending before the consolidation authorities. Aggrieved by this order, the opposite parties Lautan Singh and others filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal on the ground that no guardian of the minor Sulekh Singh defendant No. 4 was appointed and the summons were not properly and sufficiently served on the appellant and particularly on the mother of the minor Smt. Mankesara. It was also observed that the revisionist moved for mutation of the names after 7 years of the passing of the ex-parte decree. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties Sri Sankatha Rai, counsel for the revisionist has argued that the opposite party had moved for setting aside the ex-parte decree after 11 years. His second submission is that the court below has not given any reason of rejecting the revisionist's case whereas cogent reason have been assigned by the trial cour to for rejecting the application for restoration moved by the opposite parties. His second submission is that the court below has not given any reason of rejecting the revisionist's case whereas cogent reason have been assigned by the trial cour to for rejecting the application for restoration moved by the opposite parties. Sri Triveni Shankar, counsel for the opposite party has argued that no guardian of the minor was appointed, that the summons was sent but it was not affixed after alleged refusal, that the trial court did not frame any issue, that no explanation for the inordinate delay in moving the application for mutation/execution of the decree was given. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has placed reliance on 1987 R.D. 386. As regards the delay in moving the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the learned counsel has placed reliance on 1987 R.D. 416 and contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the delay of such nature should be generously condoned. In reply to the pleadings made by the learned counsel for the opposite party, the learned counsel or the revisionist had argued that there was no necessity of affixing the summons if the opposite party refused to receive it. As regards the appointment of guardian, the learned counsel has pleaded that the defendant No. 4's natural guardian mother was impleaded as party. The learned counsel for the opposite party has finally 73, 74 and 75 of the Revenue Court Manual argued that the provisions contained in paras were followed. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The suit was decreed ex-parte on September 16, 1971. Application for restoration was moved on December 14, 1982 i.e. after 11 years. The delay is, no doubt, inordinate. Hence it calls for deeper probe. Obviously, the revisionists cannot be interested in getting their case decided ex-parte. There would have been certainly some compelling reasons which might have prevented them to come forward and contest the case. Reasons are not far to seek. It appears from a perusal of the record under rules are not properly and sufficiently served on the opposite parties. I am, therefore, inclined to accept their contention. The delay, however inordinate in might be, cannot in any way affect the merits of the case. The legal position too does not go in favour of the revisionist. It appears from a perusal of the record under rules are not properly and sufficiently served on the opposite parties. I am, therefore, inclined to accept their contention. The delay, however inordinate in might be, cannot in any way affect the merits of the case. The legal position too does not go in favour of the revisionist. Admittedly, Sulekh Singh is a minor. It was imperative upon the court as well as the revisionist to appoint a guardian of Sulekh Singh. This mandatory provision was all together ignored and no guardian was appointed. When summon was issued it was sent to the minor and not to the mother. Apart from this, it has not been explained why did the revisionist move for the execution of the decree after 7 years. 5. In view of the above observations, the order passed by the court below calls for no interference. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. Let records be retuned to the courts below.