JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This review petition has been filed by Jagir Singh against the order of this court dated 4-5-1992 passed in revision No. 232/90-91. 2. The ground of the revision is that the order is illegal and against evidence on record. He argued that the revisionist's counsel was not heard on merit on the date of hearing and the matter of restoration was heard, therefore, the above order is illegal. The petitioner also alleged that the restoration application moved by Sukha Singh was not moved by him. The person who is appearing is a fake person, therefore, the restoration proceeding has been decided by the trial court are not maintainable. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The Revision No. 232 of 1990-91 was dismissed in default on 19-9-1991 by Sri S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. It was restored on 29-1-1992 and the date was fixed for final hearing on 29-4-1992. The case was adjourned on that date for 30-4-1992. Again the case was fixed on 4-5-1992. Revision was heard on 4-5-1992 and was decided on same day. Therefore, this allegation that the restoration was heard on 4-5-1992 is perfectly incorrect. Actually the revision was restored by Sri S.K. Lakhtakia, the then Member on 29-1-1992, hence there is no question that the restoration application should be argued on 4-5-1992 and it appears that the revisionist's counsel pursuaded to take the date on 29-4-1992, 30-4-1992 and ultimately on 4-5-1992. Hence there is no ground that he was not heard and he was heard on restoration application. 5. Regarding the other point was has raised that the person who has filed the restoration application in the trial court is not the person who is appearing. On those factual point both the courts below have given concurrent finding that the person who is appearing is the person against whom the suit was filed by the revisionist and obtained ex parte decree against him. The revisional courts are not competent to go back to the finding recorded by the trial court. After perusal of orders of both courts below that they have taken a proper care to reach on a definite conclusion on the finding of fact, therefore, this point now cannot be raised again. No revision is maintainable on the finding recorded on facts. After perusal of orders of both courts below that they have taken a proper care to reach on a definite conclusion on the finding of fact, therefore, this point now cannot be raised again. No revision is maintainable on the finding recorded on facts. Moreover the matter between the parties have not been finally yet adjudicated by allowing the restoration application only opportunity has been given to the opposite party. The revisionist has also been given opportunity again to establish his point of view by giving further evidence in the trial court to substentiate his allegation. He cannot avail that opportunity in the revisional court, therefore. I find no substance in law in this review petition, hence it is not admitted and rejected.