JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made under section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad, vide his recommendation dated 26.7.1988. 2. The original suit between the parties was dismissed in default on 2.2.1987. The restoration application was filed by the plaintiff on the same day. The trial court has rejected that restoration application on 30.4.1987 on the ground that no affidavit has been filed to explain the cause of absence. Against that order the revision was filed before the Commissioner who recommended the revision to be accepted on payment of a cost of Rs. 400/-. 3. No one has appeared in this court, neither any objection has been filed against the recommendation. I have perused the record. 4. It was same day restoration application which the trial Court must have accepted because there is no absence when the restoration application was filed on the same day in the court. He should have accepted the explanation that he went to call the counsel and when he came with his counsel then he came to know that the order of dismissal was passed. There was no necessity to file affidavit as he was present in the court on that date. The revisional court has imposed Rs. 400/- as costs. This is very excessive. I reduce it to Rs. 40/- only, therefore, the suit is restored on payment of cost of Rs. 40/-. Let the record should be sent to the trial court for further proceeding in accordance with law.