JUDGMENT Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a revision preferred against the Judgement and order dated 28-5-87 passed by Additional Commissioner, Bareilly Division Bareilly in appeal No. 38/71 of 1987 filed against the order dated 24-1-1986 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Bisalpur in case no 31 under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, to be called the "Act" hereinafter. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a suit under Section 229-B of the Act was brought by deceased respondent Smt. Rajrani daughter of Baldeo Prasad and wife of Sri Ram Swaroop resident of Mohalla Pheelkhana, District Pilibhit against Sri Brij Behari resident of Baldeo Prasad resident of village Barkhera, Pargana and tehsil Besalpur, District Pilibhit and Gaon Sabha and the state with the allegations that the land in suit consisting of Plot No. 109 (area 93 decimals) and 189 (37 decimals) of Village Barkhera Pargana and Tehsil Bisalpur District Pilibhit was acquired by Smt. Radhikadevi widow of Baldeo prasad was the recorded cotenant along with one Asharfi Lal but the defendant Brij Behari Lal Who is the son of her husband Baldeo Parsad with the previous wife has got no concern with the land in dispute while her husband Baldeo Prashad executed a will deed in favour of Smt. Radhikadevi the mother of the by the defendants and was decreed ex parte under Judgement and decree dated 25-1-85 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Offer Bisalpur District Pilibhit. Restoration application were filed by Brij Behari Lal and one Naresh Chander The revisionist on the grounds that they did not have any knowledge about the pendency of the suit which was decreed ex-parte and the fact is that the land in dispute was transferred by defendant Brij Behari Lal and under a registered sale-deed dated 5-12-1984 executed in favour of revisionist Naresh Chandra who is in possession from the date of transfer over the land in suit at Sri Naresh Chandra was not impleaded as party in spite of the fact that the fact of transfer was not in the knowledge of the plaintiff the restoration application were filed on 25-3-85 by Sri Naresh Chandra, revisionist and on 6-6-85 by defendant Brij Behari Lal. Objection were filed by Smt. Rajrani and ultimately the restoration application of the revisionist was rejected under the judgement and order dated 24-1-1986 passed by the Additional Sub-Divisional Officer Bisalpur against which a revision was preferred before the Commissioner which was also dismissed under the Judgement and order dated 25-5-87 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bareilly giving rise to the present revision in this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have perused the record. 4. The opposite-party Smt. Rajrani died during the pendency of this revision and her legal heirs have been substituted but none has appeared despite notice. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that in the matters of restoration the courts are expected to take a liberal view particularly when the ex-parte decrees are passed on the basis of insufficient service on the defendants. The contentions of the learned counsel are that the learned trial court has rejected the restoration application only on the grounds that the revisionist seeking the restoration application of ex-parte decree is an stranger to the case and had not been a party to the suit in which the ex-parte decree was passed and referring to 1982 Allahabad page 23 (Surajdeo v. Board of Revenue) has contended that even a stranger can bring the facts to the notice of the court concerned in order to point out that the ex parte decree was obtained by playing a fraud upon the court or the decree is collusive and it is obligatory on the part of the court concerned to set the matter right if it appears that a decree has been obtained on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. The learned counsel has urged that in the referred case the Hon'ble Judge of the High Court has observed that the restoration application is competent even if moved by a stranger if such stranger is vitally interested in the subject matter of dispute, in the present case under consideration the revisionist Naresh Chandra sought restoration of ex parte decree on the grounds that the land in dispute which was recorded in the name of defendant Brij Behari Lal was acquired by him under a registered sale-deed executed by the recorded tenure holder and thus he became the bona fide purchaser for value and is a person vitally interested in the subject matter of dispute. I totally agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist and find that both the courts below have erred in the exercise of their jurisdiction in entertaining the restoration application and the orders deserve to be set aside. 6. In view of the observations made above, this revision is allowed, the orders passed by the trial court dated 24-1-1986 and by the lower revisional court dated 28-5-1987 are set aside, the restoration application of the revisionist is allowed and he is impleaded as a party to the suit and the case is remanded back to the trial court for proceeding further after affording the parties concerned due opportunity under law and rules.