JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the judgment dated December 20, 1977 of the trial court by which it rejected the restoration application. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated October 6, 1978 recommended for quashing the aforesaid order and remand the case. 2. Heard the learned counsels perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that a case under Section 122-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 was started and in that case order was passed on November 17, 1975. Then application filed on June 6, 1977 by Jagdish Narain Singh with the allegation that he had no knowledge of the order dated November 17, 1975 and the same may be set aside. It is also alleged that the so called Vakalatnama or objection was filed on behalf of Jagdish Narain Singh was fraudulent and neither he filed any objection nor any notice was served on him nor any Vakalatnama was filed on his behalf. He has also filed an affidavit to affirm his allegations and has examined a witness to support the same. From the side of the Gaon Sabha a witness was examined and asserted that the notice was duly served and that there was an objection and vakalatnama and it cannot be said that the opposite party Jagdish Narain Singh had no knowledge about the fact of the case or he had no knowledge of the order. The trial court allowed the application by its order dated December 20, 1977. It is held that there was no notice in 49-Ka in the file and affidavit of the applicant Jagdish Narain Singh should be believed. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended that the main point has not been decided by the trial court whether the Vakalatnama or the objection or service on the opposite party was fictitious or not. 4. I see some force in the reasoning given by the learned Additional Commissioner. The main point in this case was whether the opposite party had knowledge of the proceedings or not. It cannot be said that there was no counter affidavit hence the allegations of the affidavit should be believed because the opposite party has examined a witness on oath hence the absence of the counter affidavit is of no ground. The main point in this case was whether the opposite party had knowledge of the proceedings or not. It cannot be said that there was no counter affidavit hence the allegations of the affidavit should be believed because the opposite party has examined a witness on oath hence the absence of the counter affidavit is of no ground. The main contention of the party is that the service of notice of Vakalatnama or the objection are fraudulent hence it should be decided by the trial court, and then restoration application should be disposed off. 5. I therefore find that the trial court has committed an error apparent on the face and of it and has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it. 6. The revision is therefore allowed. The order dated December 20, 1977 is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court to decide the application in accordance with law and on the basis of the observations made above. Under the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.