JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the judgement dated 27-10-72 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he allowed the appeal and remanded the case and set aside the judgement dated 4-2-72 of the trial court. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the relevant papers also heard on the merit of the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1, 1951 was filed on 1-2-68 by Smt Shakuntala against Mangal Bhagat, Gaon Sabha and State. Written statements signed by Mangal Bhagat along with the vakalatnama of Sri Bhrigunath Prasad, Advocate was filed on 3-4-1968. After that it so happened the suit was decreed ex parte on 3-12-68. On 9-12-1968 an application for setting aside the aforesaid order was filed and the same was dismissed on 4-2-72 by the trial court; but the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and remanded the case. The present revision has been filed against this order. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist-plaintiff, that one application was filed on 5-5-69 by Mangal Bhagat with the prayer that his signature may be deemed to be signed in the vakalatnama of Sri Bhrigunath Prasad, Advocate and he may be permitted to sign it now ; that application was rejected on 28-7-1969. Another application was filed on 18-8-69 with the prayer that he may be permitted to sign on the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree and the delay if any be condoned. One vakalatnama of Sri Bhrigunath Prasad, Advocate signed by Mangal Bhagat was also filed, but this application was also rejected on 4-2-72 and it was observed that the points will be discussed when the main application for setting aside the ex parte decree will be decided. Under such circumstances the learned counsel contended that the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and the point of limitation has not been decided. Under such circumstances the learned counsel contended that the lower appellate court has allowed the appeal and the point of limitation has not been decided. Secondly, it is contended that the order of the trial court could not be set aside and the principle of constructive res judicata was applicable in this case ; and thirdly, it is contended that the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was not signed by Mangal Bhagat or his counsel hence that application can not be allowed. 5. All the three points raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist are in respect of the decision of an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. I he lower appellate court has not passed an order in respect of that application; but it has set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the case for re-consideration of that application. Hence, these points are of no value so far as the order of lower appellate court is concerned. He has also contended that it was not a ease of remand because on the basis of the grounds shown above the order on the application filed on 9-12-68 cannot be reconsidered or decided again. 6. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel that the case should not have been remanded. When the facts speak for themselves there is no need to remand the case for decision on that point as held in Ram Pyare v. Ram Narain, 1985 R.D. (S.C) 120. 7. So far as the point of constructive res judicata is concerned it has got no value because no point has been decided earlier. The point decided earlier whether the application can be permitted to sign a document and the other point is in respect of fact that application should be deemed to have been filed by his counsel or pairokar. This point has not been decided and it has been kept open. Hence it cannot be said that any fact which had been decided by the court is going again to be decided. The principle of constructive res judicata is not applicable in the present case. 8. Now so far as the merit of restoration application is concerned it is to be kept in mind that a liberal view is to be taken in such cases. The principle of constructive res judicata is not applicable in the present case. 8. Now so far as the merit of restoration application is concerned it is to be kept in mind that a liberal view is to be taken in such cases. Procedure and technicalities should not stop the process of justice; justice requires that the parties should be given opportunity to out on their case and the same may be decided on merits. The vakalatnama has been filed by the counsel which has been admitted by The party. The vakalatnama should also be scrutinised liberally and too much technical view should not be taken ; hence it cannot be said that the counsel concerned was not the counsel of the parties. 9. Mangal Bhagat filed his written statement on 3-9-68 and there was vakalatnama of Bhrigunath Prasad his counsel. Later on he filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. Thus the counsel is egaged in the case for the defendants from the very beginning from inception of the suit and it cannot be said that he is a stranger. That application was filed on 9 12-63 with the prayer to set aside ex parte decree dated 3-12-68 that means the application has been filed just after 6 days. The trial court has dismissed this application by its order dated 4-2-72 The lower applellate court has set aside this order by its Judgement dated 27-2-72. The trial court has taken too much technical view and has rejected the application because it was not signed by Mangal Bhagat. This view is not justified and is not in accordance with law and the lower appellate court rightly set aside this order. 10. As mentioned above when the facts speak for themselves there is no necessity for remanding the case to the trial court. The restoration application has been filed just after 6 days ; there is no delay. Nothing else has been shown on the basis of which it can be said that the application was liable to be rejected. I, therefore, hold that in the interest of justice the restoration application filed on 9-12-68 is allowed and the ex parte decree dated 3-12-68 is set aside. 11. Nothing else has been shown on the basis of which it can be said that the application was liable to be rejected. I, therefore, hold that in the interest of justice the restoration application filed on 9-12-68 is allowed and the ex parte decree dated 3-12-68 is set aside. 11. On the reasons given above, the revision is partly allowed and the lower appellate courts order, so far as the remand of the case is concerned, is set aside and the restoration application filed on 9-12-68 is allowed and the ex parte decree dated 3-12-68 is also set aside. 12. The case is remanded to the trial court to dispose off the suit on merits in accordance with law without any delay, the suit is pending since 1968. 13. Under the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs.