JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 21-7-1992. 2. The argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist has been heard on the point of admission. 3. Smt. Ramwati filed a restoration application in the court of Sub-Divisional Officer Bhogaon, district Mainpuri against the decree in favour of the revisionist dated 30-1-1990. The restoration application was filed on 31-1-1990. The trial court has allowed that restoration application and have fixed the dated for the evidence of the parties. Against that order of the trial court revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner who has dismissed the revision on 31-7-1992 on merit. Against the order of the Additional Commissioner this revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The restoration application of Smt. Ramwati Devi dated 31-1-1990 was dismissed in default on 19-9-1991. The restoration application was again moved to restore the restoration application. The trial court has restored the restoration application and after restoring on restoration application he has also allowed the restoration application against the decree and judgment dated 30-1-1990. If the restoration application is dismissed in default and it is restored it will operate with all consequences prior to the dismissal of the restoration application. Therefore, the restoration application for restoring the restoration application filed on 19-9-1991 when the restoration was dismissed will not operate from the date of the original application filed on 31-1-1990. When the restoration application was dismissed on 19-9-1991 the application was moved on the same day to restore it and the earlier restoration application was moved on 31-1-1990 against the judgment and decree dated 30-1-1990 was well within time. By allowing these applications the trial court as well as revisional court has not committed any illegality and the order is well within the jurisdiction, therefore, in this revision, no law point is involved. It is summarily rejected.