JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur dated 8-4-1992 Passed in Revision No. 133/88/G of 1991 against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer khajani, Gorakhpur passed in a restoration proceeding on an application on 9-12-1991. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that in a restoration proceeding in suit No. 781 under Section 229-B, an application was given at the stage of argument to summon the peon who had gone to serve the summon in main suit. The trial court rejected that application on the ground that there was no service of summon and it was reported by the peon that the defendant has gone to Gorakhpur, therefore, the summons are being returned. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer rejected that application on the ground that it has been given to delay the restoration proceeding. The revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner against that order. It was dismissed on 8-4-1992 on the ground that it is an interlocutory order against which revision was not maintainable. Hence this revision under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the judgments of the courts below. 4. The restoration proceeding has not been finally disposed of. In the trial court if the trial court had failed to afford reasonable opportunity that can be also seen when the restoration proceeding is finally decided. The revisional power is not given to the superior court to control and regulate the proceeding of the Subordinate courts. In these circumstances of the case there is no ground in this revision at the stage of admission. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that a direction should be given that the trial court should afford an opportunity to him to lead the evidence. No such direction can be given the revision. However the revisionist can request the court and there is no bar to it. The learned counsel for the revisionist also argued on the factual ground that in the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer correct things are not mentioned but it cannot be challenged by way of argument. The order passed by the trial court is on record. Therefore, this revision is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the revisionist also argued on the factual ground that in the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer correct things are not mentioned but it cannot be challenged by way of argument. The order passed by the trial court is on record. Therefore, this revision is not maintainable. The ground of revision will remain in existence even when the restoration proceeding's order are challenged. 5. In these circumstances of the case there is no jurisdictional or material irregularity in the orders of the trial court and as well as that of the court of Additional Commissioner. The order of the trial court does not dispose of the mater finally. Therefore, this revision is not maintainable and it is rejected summarily.