JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member (J). - The facts are : A declaratory lawsuit under section 229-B Z A and LR Act is decided on 12-9-1974 in favour of plaintiff Toofani. An application for restoration is moved on 15-3-1975 by Chhotkan that decree is based on false endorsement on summons and also service is fraudulent. An objection in Opposition is lodged by Toofani on 25-6-1975. Parities are given chance to lead their vigilant. On an appraisal of evidence the Sub-Divisional Officer Mohamadabad, Ghazipur by an order dated 18-719977 grant restoration :the infected decreed 12-9-1974 is set aside. 2. Plaintiff/opposition party Toofani files a revision in commissioner's On 30-9-1977 Additional Commissioner submits a reference with his recommendation to set aside order of court below and to remand the application to him for disposal afresh after basing his appraisal on admissible statement of witnesses. The reference is docketed more for a definitive decision. 3. Heard the counsel pro and con the reference. 4. It is plain that lawful service of summon way made on defendant Chhotkan the declaratory lawsuit. It has not been proved that he had voluntarily filed a compromise admitting the claim of plaintiff Toofani. The State and Gaon Sabha are not parties in the compromise and the same is unlawful. The decree dated 12-9-1974 is not based on consideration it should and must. A suit cannot be decreed only on basis of admission. So the said decree is unsupportable in law. The reference is submitted by Additional Commissioner on the chief ground that below the statements of witnesses there is no signature of the presiding Judge. So there is no admissible material to sustain the conclusion. The view in 1972 RD 355 is not a good law in view of 1978 RD 246 and 1976 RD 389. The statement as a material is admissible to sustain and sponsor the conclusion the court below has come to. In restoration strict view is not to be taken. 5. The counsel for the opposite-side has called attention to 1976 RD 398, AIR 1967 Allahabad 212. The case here rest on its own ground and there is no authority on a point of fact. The order of court below show no jurisdiction error. 6. The reference is misconceived and is rejected.