JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member. - The facts of the case are that a case under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act was instituted in the court of S.D.O. Bansdih district Ballia. This was decreed on 30-7-1975. 2. Aggrieved Ram Naresh moved an application of Restoration under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. He stated that he was not served with a summon and could not know about the date of hearing. He requested that ex parte decree dated 30-7-1975 be set aside. An affidavit in support of his contention was also filed. This application was resisted by Raghoji Rai etc. They have also filed an objection supported by an affidavit. The learned A.S.D.O. by his order dated 11-9-1979 has allowed the restoration application. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, Raghoji Rai filed a revision in the court of Commissioner. Additional Commissioner by his order dated 11-9-1979 has sent this reference with his recommendation that application should be remanded for the retrial to enable the parties to lead their evidence. 4. Heard the counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. No counsel is present from the other aside. 5. On the institution of the regular suit no summon was personally served on defendant Ram Naresh. In this view the summon was published in a local newspaper. AIR 1955 NOC 181 Vol. 42 is clear that notice of the case is seldom had by publication of the summon in a newspaper. In such circumstances restoration application should be granted : 1970 RD 479. 1976 RD 276, 1972 RD 149. These cases have elucidated that on grant of a restoration application the revisional court should be loath to interfere. No regorous appreciation should be made in matters of restoration as the case is not up for consideration on merits. There is no evidence or circumstance that defendant-applicant Ram Naresh could have known of the date fixed for hearing but for his wilful negligence. Elements of the position as mediated in 1980 AWC 101 are not available. In such circumstances grant of restoration is just and proper. 6. Having secured a decree, dubious and impeachable, no less ex parte, plaintiff/opposite party Raghoji Rai has calculated reasons to frustrate the effectiveness of a restoration application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. He avoids the service of a summon on himself. In such circumstances grant of restoration is just and proper. 6. Having secured a decree, dubious and impeachable, no less ex parte, plaintiff/opposite party Raghoji Rai has calculated reasons to frustrate the effectiveness of a restoration application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. He avoids the service of a summon on himself. When circumstances bear out his ugly design and distancing from the process of court such as registered letter and publication in a newspaper which fail to compell his attendance in court, it is apt to go ahead with consideration and disposal of the application. No sooner the decree is set aside in consequence of grant of restoration application, Raghoji Rai descends on the court scene, life Pex Remona of greece dramas, unserved, uninvited, anxious and prompt to secure a reversal of the order. A copy of order is taken revision is loaded-stay applied and granted-certified-copy is filed to effectuate the telling effect of ex parte decree. He has his satisfaction in a process that redeems his assurance. 7. The behaviour of plaintiff/opposite party Raghoji Rai has been that of an eagle surveying the court scene from a lonely crage, approbating the ex parte decree, reprobating the Restoration proceeding he should then, not be given a chance to exercise his right of participation and hearing under Order 9, Rule 14 (2) C P.C. for the ample reason that he has passionately tried to deny this right to himself. He shows no case in order no tangible evidence to lead in rebutal the remand of the case for the right of hearing will be an exercise in abstraction. 8. The reference is rejected. The order of restoration dated 11-9-1979 is just and proper. The ex parte decree dated 30-7-1975 stands set aside. The suit of Ram Naresh be decided in accordance with law.