JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are: A report under Section 34, Land Revenue Act is moved by Surva Narain for mutation of his name in Tahsildar's. The pleading has set forth the claim that Ram Awadh has executed a registered testamentary disposition of his bhumidhari tenure. Proclamation in rem is issued. No objection in opposition is lodged. On 4.2.1981 Naib Tahsildar enters an order mutating the name Surya Narain. 2. Smt. Chhabbi, claiming to be widow of Ram Awadh, has appealed. On 27.1.1982 Sub-Divisional Officer enters an order allowing the appeal; the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 4.2.1981 is set aside; the application is remanded for disposal afresh on merits. 3. Applicant Surya Narair judges a revision. On 16.2.1985 Shri Nathoo Lal, Additional Commissioner, submits a reference with his recommendation to set aside Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 27.1.1982 as appeal did not lay; the order of Naib Tahsildar dated 4.2.1981 is shown bad because proclamation is null and void. He is unsure of what further is to do in proceeding. 4. The reference is decketed in the cause list for disposal. I have perused the record. 5. To being with Whether an appeal is competent against order of Naib Tahsildar? Section 201 Land Revenue Act is forthright: No appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 200 ex-parte or by default. The order be as is contemplated in Section 200 Land Revenue Act. This reads: Whenever any party to such proceeding neglects to attend on the day specified in the summons, the court may dismiss the case for default or may hear and determine it ex-parte. Whether Smt. Chhabbi has neglected to attend? If proclamation is adequate or summon is served, she has neglected, the appeal will, then, surely not lay. Conversely, if proclamation is inadequate or summon is not properly served, appeal is quite competent. Take a measure of service of process; this will help to decide whether appeal will lay or is not tenable. Additional Commissioner is firmly of opinion that proclamation is null and void. The latter finding is linked with the former issue; the competence of an appeal. A party who is not served at all is innocent of all. Against an ex-parte order he has two remedies (1) a restoration under Section 201 Land Revenue Act in Tahsildar's (2) an appeal to Collector under Section 210 Land Revenue Act. The latter finding is linked with the former issue; the competence of an appeal. A party who is not served at all is innocent of all. Against an ex-parte order he has two remedies (1) a restoration under Section 201 Land Revenue Act in Tahsildar's (2) an appeal to Collector under Section 210 Land Revenue Act. He may resort to one or the other, as is his pleasure, alternately or simultaneously. The orders as will come to pass will have different telling consequences. If restoration is granted first in point of time, the ex-parte order will not survive; appeal in Sub-Divisional Officer will become infructuous. Likewise, if appeal is first allowed by Sub-Divisional Officer on merits, ex-parte order will go down; restoration application will become redundant in Tahsildar's. Take negative verdicts. Where restoration is rejected by Tahsildar, an appeal will still be competent in Sub-Divisional Officer's. Where appeal against ex-parte order is rejected by Sub-Divisional Officer first in point of time Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to grant restoration. I assimilate here the principle appended in Explanation to Order IX Rule 13, C.P.C. because it makes sense; "Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of on any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this Rule for setting aside that ex-parte decree." 6. These are the pains and cares of the obligation to judge on the point. I am on. Shri Nathoo Lal, Additional Commissioner misapprehends that there is an absolute bar in an appeal to Sub-Divisional Officer. It is a relative bar. In the setting of facts here, appeal is competent. The reference is misconceived and is rejected. Tahsildar is under obligation to decide mutation application afresh, admitting objection in opposition of Smt. Chabbi, on merits according to law.