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, Agra Division, Agra dated 21.2.1992 passed in Revision no. 114/1190 arising out of suit No. 42/52/23 of 1984-85 under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. The above suit was decided exparte. Ved Prakash filed restoration application and for impleadment on the ground that he is recorded over the plot for which ex parte decree was passed on 30.9.1986. The trial Court after hearing the parties restored the suit and allowed Ved Prakash to be impleaded vide his order dated 18.5.1990. The revision was filed against that order in the court of Additional Commissioner who also dismissed the revision on 21.2.1992. Then this revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of admission. 4. Over the dispute plot Ved Prakash who moved the restoration application is recorded, therefore, he is necessary party in the suit and he has right to file the restoration application. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist that Ved Prakash was not a party in the suit, hence Ved Prakash could not file the restoration application. The trial court has not decided the suit finally he has only afforded opportunity to the recorded person to be heard in the suit. Giving opportunity is not a case decide, therefore, no revision lies. I, therefore, do not want to exercise my discretion to interfere in the orders of both the courts below. Hence this revision is summarily rejected.