JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This reference No. 68 of 1981-82/Varanasi arises arises out of a recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in revision petition No. 103/380 of 1978, Varanasi - Suraj Nath v. Raja Ram. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Suraj Nath filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in the court of the S.D.O. (North) Varanasi. The suit was decreed ex-parte on April 20, 1971. Jharkhandey and others moved an application on July 9, 1971 to set aside the ex-parte decree. One Tulsi also moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree on July 23, 1971. In the absence of the applicants, the said applications were consigned to the record-room. On February 26, 1972. Raja Ram, Bhagwati Girja Shanker, and Jharkhandey, Munni Lal, Chunni Lal, Khundi Ram and Radhey shyam made another application along with an affidavit for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Similar application was moved by Tulsi on March 4, 1972. A registered summon was sent to the plaintiff Suraj Nath. The summon was not received back and Suraj Nath did not appear. The trial court allowed both the applications for restoration on August 11, 1978 and set aside the ex-parte decree dated April 20, 1971 and restored the suit to its original number. The trial court also abated the suit under Section 5 of the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act. Suraj Nath moved an application on August 11, 1972 to set aside the above order. The trial court rejected this application on August 23, 1978. Aggrieved by this order the plaintiff Suraj Nath filed a revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, after hearing the parties, the learned Additional Commissioner has recommended to set aside the order of the trial court. The learned Additional commissioner has served that Raja Ram, Jharkhandey, Munni Lal, Chunni Lal and Radhey Shyam had moved their first application on July 9, 1971 for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated April 20, 1971. This application was consigned to the record-room on August 8, 1971 in the absence of the applicant. The second application was moved on February 20, 1972 concealing the fact that an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was moved earlier. This application was consigned to the record-room on August 8, 1971 in the absence of the applicant. The second application was moved on February 20, 1972 concealing the fact that an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was moved earlier. They contended in their first application that they come to know of the ex-parte decree on July 8, 1971 but in the subsequent application, the date of knowledge was given an February 23, 1972. Similarly, the application of Tulsi was consigned to the record-room on August 3, 1971. He also concealed this fact in the subsequent application that he had made an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree earlier too. In the first application, the date of knowledge of the ex-parte decree was shown as July 22, 1971 but in the subsequent application it was shown as March 4, 1972. According to the Additional Commissioner, by concealing the fact the applicants played fraud upon the court. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed that the trial court has committed material irregularity in abating the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.C.H. Act without giving any notice to the revisionist. 3. I have carefully considered the above arguments and have also perused the record. The learned trial court has set aside the ex-parte decree dated April 20, 1971 by means of his order dated August 11, 1972, observing that the plaintiff Suraj Nath did not respond inspite of sufficient service by registered post. I find no illegality in setting aside the ex-parte decree because the plaintiff did not appear despite service by registered post. By means of this order, the learned trial court has also abated the suit under Section 5 of the U.P.C.H. Act. This order is wrong because it was imperative upon the court to send notice to the plaintiff Suraj Nath before passing the order of abatement. This portion of this order is, therefore, quashed. 4. In view of the above, the revision is allowed to the extent that the order regarding abatement of the suit under Section 5 of the U.P. C.H. Act without giving any notice to the plaintiff Suraj Nath is set aside and the suit is remanded to the trial court with the direction that necessary order, if any, for abatement of the suit shall be passed by the trial court after giving due notice to the plaintiff.