JUDGMENT Palok Basu, J. 1. This is a writ petition filed by Gaon Sabha Piprota, Pargana, Tahsil and District Ballia through its Pradhan with the prayer that the order passed by the Board of Revenue in Second Appeal No. 9 of 84-85, dated 19-1-87 be quashed. 2. The respondents Dina Nath Tewari and Smt. Kalawati being the dependents of two such persons who lost their lives while defending the country in the 1965 war between India and Pakistan, were allegedly allotted some plot of land by the Gaon Sabha. Some trouble having arisen concerning their rights, they had to file a suit for declaration of their rights u/Sec. 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said suit was filed on 4-12-72 in which, the State of U. P. aswell as the Gaon Sabha through the Pradhan were impleaded as defendants. Admittedly on 4-1-73, the notice was served in the office of the Collector and on 4-2-73, the notice was served on the Up Pradhan of the village. Neither there was any contest by the State, nor did the Gaon Sabha object to the suit. Consequently on 6-5-75, an ex-parte decree was passed. On 1-3-79, a restoration application appears to have been filed by the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha, wherein he has alleged that knowledge of the ex-parte decree came to him on 6-2-79. Similarly a restoration application on behalf of State of U. P. was also filed on 2-2-81 with the allegation that it is only when the D.G.C. (R) had inspected the file of the case on 13-1-81 that it had come to know of the ex-parte decree. 3. The trial court on a detailed consideration of the entire material by its reasoned order dated 23-7-84 dismissed the restoration application. The primary point noted by the trial court was that the restoration application saw the light of the day after about 5 years and there was absolutely no valid explanation for the delay either from the Pradhan's side or from the State's side. 4. Aggrieved, a first appeal was taken to the Commissioner's court by the Gaon Sabha through the Pradhan of the village aswell as by the State. 4. Aggrieved, a first appeal was taken to the Commissioner's court by the Gaon Sabha through the Pradhan of the village aswell as by the State. The ground agitated by the Gaon Sabha through the Pradhan was that the service of the notice/summons of the suit on the Up Pradhan was not legal and, therefore, the ex-parte proceedings could not have been drawn up The Commissioner by his order dated 26-11-84 allowed the appeal. At this stage, it may be stated that in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4, the Commissioner had narrated only the facts and arguments and the entire discussion of the respective arguments was contained in paragraph 5 consisting of five lines. He opined that since the service was effected on Gauri Shanker, Up Pradhan, there was no justification for the ex-parte decree. No other reason exist in the judgment of the Commissioner. The opposite parties no. 4 and 5, consequently, took a second appeal to the Board of Revenue, which has been allowed by it on 19-1-87. The finding recorded by the Board of Revenue is that the Commissioner's judgment suffers from two basic infirmity-Firstly, there was no discussion of the law basing upon which he was allowing the appeal and, secondly, there was absolutely no reason in his judgment as to why enormous delay in making the restoration application was not being touched. 5. On these two findings, the Board of Revenue allowed the appeal. Aggrieved, the Gaon Sabha, through its Pradhan has filed the present petition, in support of which, Sri K. B. Garg has been heard at length and opposite parties no. 4 and 6 have been represented by Sri S. N. Singh, who too has been heard at sufficient length. 6. The first argument advanced by Mr. Garg was that the case should be taken to be covered by the provisions contained in Section 331 of the Act, which in turn makes section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order 43, Rule 1 applicable to the proceedings before the Collector's court. In this view of the matter, it is argued that no appeal lay against the order of the Commissioner allowing the appeal against the order rejecting the prayer for restoring the suit. He has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Asrob AH Laskar v. Manuhar Ali Majumdar, AIR 1954 Assam 168. In this view of the matter, it is argued that no appeal lay against the order of the Commissioner allowing the appeal against the order rejecting the prayer for restoring the suit. He has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Asrob AH Laskar v. Manuhar Ali Majumdar, AIR 1954 Assam 168. This argument is a technical one. The order by which the relief can be denied to a particular person must be held to be subject to further appeal unless prohibited by law. If the appeal could lay by the Gaon Sabha before the Commissioner, there is no reason to think that the same matter could not be continued in second appeal by the person who had an order in his favour. No procedural law should be interpreted to mean curtailing the rights of the parties duly accruing to them under the law. The other argument of Mr. Garg is that the Up Pradhan was colluding with the opposite parties 4 and 5 (Plaintiffs). The law of service of notice cannot be mixed up with issues such as the one argued by Mr. Garg In the absence of the Pradhan, the Up Pradhan discharges all functions of the Pradhan. If, therefore, a notice of a suit was served on the Up Pradhan, it has to be taken that the same has been done in accordance with law. The factual basis of the service must not be intermingled with the allegations of bias or mala fide at the behest of Up Pradhan. Consequently, there is no force in this argument that the service on Up Pradhan should be taken to be insufficient because of the allegation that the Up Pradhan may have been in collusion. Moreover, as it is, there does not appear any force in the argument that the Up Pradhan has been in collusion. As stated above, the notice was served not only on the Up Pradhan but also on the State of U. P. If the Up Pradhan had colluded there is no reason why the State of U. P. could not have proceeded to get the ex-parte order vacated. Therefore, for this added reason also, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Therefore, for this added reason also, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In view of what has been discussed above, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. The interim order dated 22-4-87 is vacated. Petition dismissed.