JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference under Section 333-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act made by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 1-6-84 through which he has recommended that the order of the S.D.O. Sadar Azamgarh dated 25-7-1983 restoring the suit be set aside. 2. The facts of this case in a nut-shell are that Ramdeo & others filed a suit under Section 229-B/209 of U.P, Act I of 1951 against Pradhan, Gaon Sabha, U.P. State as well as three other persons namely Jai Karan/Kalicharan and Sunder. Pradhan and the State Government took adjournment for filing written statement but thereafter they did not turn up. The other three defendants admitted the claim of the plaintiffs and the suit was decreed on the basis of their admission on 21-4-69. On 11-8-1976 an application was moved by the Lekhpal of the village coupled with the signatures of the D.G.C. to restore the suit and to set aside the order dated 21-4-1969 on the ground that the land belonged to the Gaon Sabha and that the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha was in collusion of the plaintiff and he did not contest the suit and, therefore, the decree had been obtained ex-parte. On notice the plaintiffs filed an objection but it was rejected and the suit was restored setting aside the decree passed on 21-4-1969. A revision was filed against this order by the plaintiffs and the learned Addl. Commissioner finding that the revision should be allowed has referred the revision to this court with the recommendation that no fraud was played upon the trial court and, therefore, the suit could not be restored. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned D.G.C. argued that the land belongs to the Gaon Sabha and the suits against the Gaon Sabha are not generally properly contested. If the Pradhan is in collusion of the plaintiff the Lekhpal being the Secretary of the Gaon Sabha could move for restoration and therefore, the order of the S.D.O. restoring the suit is justified. 5. The application for restoration is not only signed by the Lekhpal but also by the D.G.C. who must have been well conversant with the law. If the Pradhan is in collusion of the plaintiff the Lekhpal being the Secretary of the Gaon Sabha could move for restoration and therefore, the order of the S.D.O. restoring the suit is justified. 5. The application for restoration is not only signed by the Lekhpal but also by the D.G.C. who must have been well conversant with the law. It must have been in his knowledge that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has to accompany an application for restoration if a decree is sought to be set aside beyond the period of 30 days, the D.G.C. did not take any step to file any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act when he moved, the application for restoration before the trial court. In the absence of such application for condonation of delay the decree could not be set aside. The trial court was, therefore, wrong in setting aside the decree passed on 21-4-1969 when no application for condonation of delay was moved before him along with the application for restoration. 6. I, therefore, fully agree with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner that the order of the S.D.O. in setting aside the ex parte decree dated 21-4-1969 was beyond jurisdiction and that order must be set aside. 7. While parting with the judgment I would like to endorse the view of the learned D.G.C. that the cases filed against the Gaon Sabha are not properly contested and the members of the L.M.C. are not even informed about the case in which the Pradhan has an adverse interest against the Gaon Sabha or is in collusion with the opposite party. It would, therefore, be proper that instructions are issued by the Government that all summonses received from the court must be produced before the L.M.C. during the meetings of the L.M.C. and every summons must be added in the agenda of such meeting, so that a proper resolution may be passed in each and every case without fail by the members of the L.M.C. passing a resolution whether a particular suit or proceeding has to be contested or not. In my opinion this practise is not being followed by any Gaon Sabha or L.M.C. and that is why most of the Pradhans take arbitrary decisions in the matter of contesting the suits and proceedings. In my opinion this practise is not being followed by any Gaon Sabha or L.M.C. and that is why most of the Pradhans take arbitrary decisions in the matter of contesting the suits and proceedings. The learned D.G.C. should, therefore, invite the attention of the Government to the observations made by me above so that the property of the Gaon Sabha maybe saved from this unscrupulous Pradhans. 8. With this observation the revision is allowed and the order of the S.D.O. dated 25-7-1984 is set aside.