JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Goraknpur dated 10.8.1992 passed in a revision No. 1594/321/A of 1989 against the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, District Azamgarh dated 23.8.1989 arising out of a proceeding under Section 161 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties on the point of admission. Perused the record. 3. The revisionist filed exchange application before the trial court which was allowed. Masood Ahmad filed the restoration application on the ground that he was not present and the proceeding was decided. He was at that time in South Arabia. This restoration proceeding was challenged by the revisionist. After hearing both the parties the learned trial court allowed the restoration application on 23.8.1986 against which a revision was filed before the Addl. Commissioner who had dismissed it. Then this revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the exchange was allowed on the basis of admission, therefore, it was duty of the trial court to have examine the signature of the revisionist then only the restoration have been allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the Opp. parties argued that service of summon was on the brother of the revisionist as revisionist was outside India and was in South Arabia, therefore, there was no service of summon. The service of summon could be served on adult member only when there is possibility of that the person concerned will come back to the village in a day or two days or so but when an adult member is outside the country no service of summon can be served on the adult member of the family. 6. I fully agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the Opp. parties. Moreover whatever the finding has been recorded by the trial court about the service of the summon it cannot be examined in the exercise of his revisional power. The trial court only had allowed the parties to establish their claim in presence of both the parties, therefore, no illegality has been committed in the exercise of the jurisdiction by both the courts below. The trial court only had allowed the parties to establish their claim in presence of both the parties, therefore, no illegality has been committed in the exercise of the jurisdiction by both the courts below. I, therefore, do no consider it proper to admit this revision and it is accordingly summarily dismissed.