JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This is a reference No. 143 of 1978-79, Ballia made by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in respect of revision No. 131/61 of 1977, Ballia - Shambhu Nath Singh v. Khedan and others. 2. Briefly stated, the fats of the case are that Shambhoo Nath son of Ram Pravesh brought a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act against Khedan and Phullan in the Court of the S.O.D. Bansdih, Ballia. The suit was decreed ex-parte on July 15, 1969, the defendant Khetan filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated July 12, 1968. The trial court allowed the application on October 12, 1977 and restored the case. Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiff filed a revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi. The leaned Additional Commissioner has made a reference recommending to set aside the order passed by the trial court. On receipt of the recommendation, Phullan son of Sudan filed objection contending that the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is against facts and law as well as against the documentary evidence on record, that there was no allegation that Budhan and Sudhan have died, that the service of summons was fraudulent, that the learned lower court recorded as finding of fact that summons in the name of Khedan was said to have taken by Budhan of perusal of the report; it is incorrect and wrong as Sudhan and Budhan had already died and their sons were arrayed as defendants and the so called service was effected on dead person and huge fraud was played in obtaining the ex-parte decree, that the alleged written statement dated April 26, 1968 purporting to be on behalf of Khedan does not bear thumb impression of Khedan nor had he knowledge; the objector has neither engaged Sri Shambhu Nath Advocate nor put signatures on the Vakalatnama, that the objector neither produced any witness nor any issue was framed on the plaintiff's rights, that the restoration application filed by the objector was supported by an affidavit and there was no counter affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff, that the burden of proving signatures of service is on the plaintiff and in view of the ruling reported in 1978 R.D. 16 and 9, the court can exercise inherent powers to set aside the fraudulent ex-parte decree. 3. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. None appeared on behalf of the objector despite notice. The case was decreed ex-parte on July 12, 1968. Application for restoration of the same was moved on July 15, 1969 with the contention that the defendant had no knowledge of the case nor any summons were served on them, that one Sudhan appears to have put his thumb impression on the summons. Sudhan had already died and so the ex-parte was obtained fraudulently. The learned trial court held that the summons were not properly served not was any written statement filed on behalf of the defendant. He has also observed that Sudhan had put his thumb impression on the summons issued to Khedan and Khedan had put his thumb impression on the summons to Sudhan. He has also observed that no counter affidavit was filed by the plaintiff in response to the affidavit filed by the objector. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that one summon was sent to Phullan son of Sudhan. He has recommended to set aside the order of the trial court on the ground that only ex-parte could give his expert opinion on the service of summons. The other ground is that the oral evidence was not properly discussed by the trial court. It appears from the trial court file that the defendant has filed an affidavit on June 14, 1947 with the specific allegation that Ram Prakash was contesting the suit by prosy through his minor sons. It has also been alleged by means of this affidavit that the thumb impression was put on the summons in the name of Sudhan who had already died. It was also denied that no written statement was filed on April 26, 1968 not was any counsel engaged and that the defendant knew about the ex-parte decree on July 10, 1969. He has also denied to have put any thumb impression on the summons. The trial court has pointed out that no counter affidavit was filed by the plaintiff denying the assertions made by the defendant. I agree with the learned trial court. Where specific assertions and allegations are made by means of an affidavit and the allegations made therein are not controverted by means of a counter-affidavit, the allegation and by the deponent shall be accepted. I agree with the learned trial court. Where specific assertions and allegations are made by means of an affidavit and the allegations made therein are not controverted by means of a counter-affidavit, the allegation and by the deponent shall be accepted. The trial court has, therefore, rightly allowed the application and set aside the ex-parte decree. The learned Additional Commissioner had ignored this aspect of law. The recommendation made him is, therefore, not acceptable and the revision petition is dismissed. The trial court shall proceed with the case according to law. Let records of the case be sent to the lower courts concerned.