JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - Lallan filed this revision under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 13.7.1979 passed in appeal No. 975-D of 1979. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that suit was filed by Prahlad against the revisionist, State and Gaon Sabha that he is a sole bhumidhar of the suit plot. The suit was contested between the parties and Lallan that he is recorded bhumidhar of the suit plot. The date was fixed on 5.3.1973. Both the parties appeared. The Presiding Officer was out of station, hence the dated was given on 9.3.1973 for plaintiff's evidence. On that date revisionist absent hence the case proceeded ex-parte against him and the dated was fixed on 24.3.1973. The suit was decided on the same dated ex-parte filed that restoration application on 20.4.1973 with affidavit and medical certificate that he was ill, hence he was absent on the previous date. This restoration application was opposed but no counter affidavit was filed. The trial court dismissed the restoration application on 4.5.1978 against which appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner who has also dismissed the appeal, hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. Opposite-party is absent. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that application of restoration was within time. It was supported by a medical certificate and affidavit which was not controverted by any affidavit, the trial court ought to have accepted it. The trial court has given ground of rejecting the restoration application that why the application was not filed well before that. This is not a ground. The law provide that a restoration can be given within 30 days from the knowledge of the decree or order or from the date of the decree or the order. The court cannot lay down that why the application was not given in first week, second week or so on, the application must be within time. It is also important to note here that the revisionist is recorded bhumidhar over the dispute plot. Why disallowing the restoration both the court have showed down his all the remedies to be heard. 5. I, therefore, allow this revision and set aside the orders of both the courts below and restore the suit. It is also important to note here that the revisionist is recorded bhumidhar over the dispute plot. Why disallowing the restoration both the court have showed down his all the remedies to be heard. 5. I, therefore, allow this revision and set aside the orders of both the courts below and restore the suit. Let the trial court decide case afresh after giving notice to both the parties and affording opportunity to lead evidence.