JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - The Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur vide his order dated 19-10-1984 has referred this reference under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that a restoration proceeding was decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer Padrauna, Deoria on 25-10-1982. Vide that restoration application the ex-parte decree dated 11-6-1971 was set aside and the suit was restored. Since there was a consolidation operation in the village, hence the suit was abated under Section 5 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act. Against that order revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner by ram Roop and others with this plea that the ex-parte decree was very old, therefore the trial court set aside that decree has committed illegality. The additional Commissioner has referred the Additional Commissioner has referred the revision with the recommendation that the order of the trial court should be set aside and he should be directed to decide the restoration application afresh. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one is present for the opposite-parties. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that no one is pairving the revision. There has been consolidation in the village. The right and title between the parties must have been decided in the consolidation operation. He only argued that the ex-parte decree should not operate against his client. When the suit is pleaded under Section 5 (2) of U.P.C.H. Act ex-parte decree passed in that suite will operate. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision to accept it and remand the case to the trial court to decide the restoration application afresh. The right and title which would have been decided in the trial court will be now binding. 5. In these circumstances of the case the reference is not accepted as the revisional court has not power to rebut the finding recorded by the trial court. In these circumstances of the case the reference is rejected.