JUDGMENT S.K. Lakntakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur dated 25.4.1985 through which he has recommended that the order of the S.D.O., Padrauna dated 27.3.1984 be set aside and the case be remanded back to him for deciding the restoration application afresh in accordance with law. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that the revisionist Brahmdeo Singh and others filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act which was decreed on the basis of a compromise filed by some defendants and it was decreed ex parte against the Gaon Sabha and the State on 27.1.1971. On 28.6.1983 an application for restoration of the suit was moved by the Pradhan. Another application for restoration of the suit was moved by D.G.C.(R.) and the State also on 8.11.1983. The plaintiff filed an objection that earlier also an application for restoration had been moved by the Pradhan on 16.8.71 and it was dismissed for default on 23.12.1971. It was further alleged that the D.G.C. also had made an endorsement on the file on 30.12.1970 that the suit was not to be contested by the State. In such circumstances it was alleged that both the applications were liable to be dismissed. The trial court ordered on 27.3.84 that both the applications, i.e., of the Gaon Sabha and the State shall be disposed of together and 2.4.1984 was fixed for evidence. The plaintiff went up in revision against that order and it has now come up on reference before this court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned orders. 4. It appears that both the applications for restoration are still pending before the trial court and they have not been disposed of finally. The objection against the restoration applications has also been tiled by the plaintiff and it is under consideration of the court. In such circumstances the order of the trial court dated 27.3.1984 cannot be said to be a final order nor can it be covered by the term case decided. Consequently no revision could he against such order. The revisionist by preferring a revision against the order of the trial court have wasted a lot of time of their own as well as of the opposite party and the Courts. Consequently no revision could he against such order. The revisionist by preferring a revision against the order of the trial court have wasted a lot of time of their own as well as of the opposite party and the Courts. The revision against the order of the trial court was not maintainable but even then the learned Additional Commissioner has recommended the same to be allowed but surprisingly enough he has made a recommendation for the remand of the case also for decision by the trial court on the application of the State. He has opined that the application of the Gaon Sabha is not maintainable. I do not agree with such opinion of the learned Additional Commissioner. It is the trial court which must exercise its jurisdiction about the maintainability of the applications and the revisional jurisdiction can be invoked only after a final order has been passed by the trial court about the maintainability of the application and the jurisdiction of the court. In such circumstances I am afraid I cannot agree with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner and, therefore, I reject the reference and dismiss the revision. The file is ordered to be sent back to the trial court to dispose of the applications for restoration moved by the Gaon sabha and the State according to law. The order of the trial court dated 27.3.1984 does not suffer from any irregularity and illegality, hence it is maintained.