JUDGMENT B. Kumar, Member - This reference arises out of a recommendation dated January 16, 1982 made by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in revision petition No. 12 of 1980, Ballia. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the revisionist Badri filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, in respect of plot number 82 area 1.6 acres and plot number 104/1 area 1.45 acres, situate in village Jauripur, claiming to be the Sirdar of the land is dispute. The Gaon Sabha and State contested the suit denying the claims of the plaintiff and contending that the plaintiff's suit was decreed on September 19, 1963. The State filed an application for review on January 15, 1964. Another application for review by the State was field on February 16, 1964. But the review petitions made by one Prabhu was rejected on November 25, 1964 and the review petition filed by the State was cosigned to the record-room. On September 5, 1964, the village came under consolidation operations and a gazette notification in respect of the village was published on June 7, 1979. The State moved an application for review on September 28, 1979. Another application was moved by the Gaon Sabha on October 26, 1979. No notice was issued on the application of the State on the application moved by the Gaon Sabha, summons were issued and a fictitious thumb-impression of Badri was obtained on the summon. the trial court allowed both the applications on September 10, 1980. Against this order a revision was preferred before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended to set aside the order passed by the trial court on September 16, 1980. The State has filed an objection against the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner with the contention that the land in dispute No. 82 area 1.6 acres and 104/1 area 1.45 acres are recorded as Banjar in the Khatauni. In order to grab this land, Badri filed a suit on April 9, 1962. No summons were issued to the Gaon Sabha and the State 3. I have heard the learned for the parties and have also perused the record. In order to grab this land, Badri filed a suit on April 9, 1962. No summons were issued to the Gaon Sabha and the State 3. I have heard the learned for the parties and have also perused the record. Sri Triveni Shanker, learned counsel for the revisionist has urged, firstly that the State did not contest the case during the consolidation operation and the revisionist's name was recorded in the revenue papers, secondly that no notice was given to to the revisionist on the review petition by the State on September 28, 1979; on February 26, 1979 the Gaon Sabha moved an application for review but summons to the revisionist were not properly served and his fictitious thumb-impression was obtained and , thirdly that no suit can be brought on the same cause of action. He has placed reliance on 1979 R.D. 37. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the Gaon Sabha filed the review petition without any resolution passed by Gaon Sabha. The learned D.G.C. (R.) has submitted that the consolidation proceedings have no bearing on the restoration application. Relying on 1978 A.R.C. 496, the leaarned D.G.C.(R.) has argued that no interference in the revisional matter is called for. He has further argued that the review petition moved by the State is still undisposed of. In reply to the arguments made by the D.G.C.(R.), the learned counsel for the revisionist has maintained that the ruling referred by the learned D.G.C.(R.) is not applicable to the present case because the facts of the case are altogether different. 4. I have carefully considered the argumetns advanced by learned counsel for the parties. The original suit was filed on April 9, 1962. The suit was decreed exparte on September 19, 1963. Now the only question for consideration is whether the learned trial cour was justified in allowing the application moved by the State and the Gaon Sabha and restoring the case. It appeals fro the original trial court file that the State has filed objection on April 30, 1963. The order-sheet shows that the case was fixed for hearing of May 1, 1963. On this date, the presiding office was no leave and the case was adjourned to June 29, 1963. It appeals fro the original trial court file that the State has filed objection on April 30, 1963. The order-sheet shows that the case was fixed for hearing of May 1, 1963. On this date, the presiding office was no leave and the case was adjourned to June 29, 1963. The case could not be heard because the presiding office was on eave on this date too and the case was adjourned to July 24, 1963. The case was not heard even on the date and was adjourned to August 13, 1963. On this date too, the presiding office was on leave and the case was adjourned to September 19, 1963. On September 19, 1963 the case was decreed ex-parte because the defendants were absent. After filing of the objection by the State, the dates mentioned above were not noticed by any party on the order-sheet. There is nothing on the record to show that the State or any other defendants were informed of the dates fixed for hearing. It appears from the order dated September 15, 1980 passed by the trial court that even notice under Section 80 C.P.C was not issued. The learned trial court has observed that though there were orders on the restoration application moved by the state that, the D.G.C.(R.) be informed for November 17, 1966, there appears no compliance of this order and the application for restoration moved by the State was consigned to the record-room. On this ground the trail court allowed the restoration application moved by the Gaon Sabha and the State and restored. 5. The learned Additional Commissioner has recommended to set aside the order of the trial court on the ground that the trial court has acted beyond jurisdiction in disposing of the review petition consigned to the record room. The reason given by him are that the restoration application moved by Prabhu was rejected on November 25, 1966. Since there was no reference to the order of the trial court dated November 25, 1966 of the review petition of the State, it would be treated as disposed of along with the review petition of Prabhu. This finding is erroneous. When there are no clear cut orders on the restoration application how can it be treated as disposed of. Since there was no reference to the order of the trial court dated November 25, 1966 of the review petition of the State, it would be treated as disposed of along with the review petition of Prabhu. This finding is erroneous. When there are no clear cut orders on the restoration application how can it be treated as disposed of. Another ground for setting aside the order of the trial court is that since the Gaon Sabha did not contest the case during the consolidation operations, it cannot be said that the Gaon Sabha had no knowledge of the suit. This is a strange finding. Even if it is accepted for arguments sake the the Gaon Sabha, did not contesting the case during consolidation operations how can it be presumed that it had knowledge of the suit pending before the S.D.O. The recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner in, therefore, not acceptable. The trial court was fully justified in setting aside the ex-parte order and restoring the suit. 6. Now I examine the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Relying on Parmeshwar Din v. D.D.C., 1979 (5) A.L.R. 481 (Writ Petition No. 1064 of 1972 Alld. High Court), the learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the fresh suit can be brought on the same cause of action. I am afraid, I am unable to accept the contention made by the learned counsel. It has been held by the Hon'ble D.N. Jha, J. suit is pending under the consolidation operations, the cause of action is not destroyed and the parties can agitate the same cause of action before the consolidation authorities. This ruling is not applicable to the present case. The suit was neither abated nor dismissed. It was decided ex-parte. It is a fact that the Gaon Sabha and the State did not file any objection before the consolidation authorities. But they cannot be debarred from making an application for restoration of the suit after the consolidation operations were over. Both the parties and the trial court are at liberty to get an issued framed whether the suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and to decide the case on merits 7. But they cannot be debarred from making an application for restoration of the suit after the consolidation operations were over. Both the parties and the trial court are at liberty to get an issued framed whether the suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act and to decide the case on merits 7. In this result, the revision petition is dismissed and the case is remanded to the trial court for disposal of the suit on merits after affording due opportunity to the parties.