JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra Dated 15.4.1991 passed in revision No. 17 of 1989-90 arising out of a suit No. 16/82-83 in restoration application order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Agra dated 8.2.1990. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was decided on 29.7.1983 in favour of Kullia Ram. However Parvana amaldaramad was issued on 23.11.1987. One of the defendant Lal Babu son of Pratap filed restoration application on 27.6.1988 that he was minor when the suit was decree against him. His real brothers who were parties and his natural mother who was representing him in the suit colluded with the plaintiff and the suit was decreed against him. He has not got the benefit, what the other defendant has got,therefore, he requested that the decree should be set aside and he should be allowed to contest the suit. The restoration application was allowed on 5.6.1989 ex-parte. There was general strike and date was on 1.4.1989. The counsel for the revisionist noted the date 10.4.1989. Hence restoration application was proceeded ex-parte on 1.4.1989 and the suit was restored on 5.4.1989 ex-parte. Then plaintiff Killia Ram moved application that he was not heard when the ex parte order was set aside, hence he should be allowed to be heard and the ex parte order dated 5.4.1989 should be set aside. The notice was issued on this application to the opposite parties and after hearing the parties this application of the plaintiff was dismissed on 8.2.1990. He filed the revision before the Additional Commissioner under Section 333-A of U.P. Act, No. 1 of 1951, the revision was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 15.4.1991. Against this order the present revision has been filed in this court under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Original suit was filed on 16.2.1983, Opposite party alongwith his four brothers were the defendants. They all filed Vakalatnama in the trial court. The signature of the natural mother of the opposite party was also obtained on the Vaaklatanma alongwith the defendants. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Original suit was filed on 16.2.1983, Opposite party alongwith his four brothers were the defendants. They all filed Vakalatnama in the trial court. The signature of the natural mother of the opposite party was also obtained on the Vaaklatanma alongwith the defendants. They failed to appear subsequently in the trial court, hence the suit was decreed ex-parte on 29.7.1983. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that there was mistake on the part of the counsel of his client in nothing the date. When he appeared there then he noticed the order passed against his client on 2.4.1989 ex-parte, therefore, he moved the application alongwith the affidavit. Though a counter application was filed on 9.6.1988 but the fact of this application was not controverted, therefore the learned court ought to have accepted the restoration application and after taking the evidence should have decided the restoration application. This opportunity was not given to him, hence that order remains enforced without giving opportunity to him. The ex-parte decree was set aside by ex-parte order dated 5.4.1989 only on the ground that the opposite party was minor. No any other finding has been given. The decree had been set aside in to whereas the other defendant against whom the decree was passed had not appeared to file the restoration application. He also argued that it was necessary to record the finding when opposite party Lal Babu attained majority. None of the question involved in the restoration application was adjudicated by the trial court after taking the evidence of the parties. The allegation of Lal Babu is that a fraud was committed by his brother and mother on him. When a fraud is committed on parties the remedy for which lies in the Civil Court and not in the Revenue Court in the present proceeding. 6. Against this the learned counsel for the opposite party argued that when a suit is decreed against the minor as soon as he appeared it should be set aside and he should be heard. 7. I agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that when a suit is decreed against minor and he is not represented by a nature guardian then the ex-parte order should be set aside when the application is filed within time. 7. I agree with this contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that when a suit is decreed against minor and he is not represented by a nature guardian then the ex-parte order should be set aside when the application is filed within time. If the application is not filed within time after attaining the majority it ought to not have been set aside. It is not simply a suit against minor alone. There has been four as other real brothers he was also represented by his mother. He had also signed the Vakalatnama, whether he has signed the Vakalatnama as a major or minor, this point should be also decided by the trial court, when the suit was decreed whether he was major or minor. When he attained the majority this finding is also to be decided by the trial court. In these circumstances of the case there appears that the trial court has passed the order dated 5.4.1989 in haste. When there was a general strike after the date fixed he should have waited or atleast issued the notice to the counsel then the trial court ought to have decided the restoration proceeding in this way. No opportunity has been given to the revisionist to put his claim in the restoration application. 8. I, therefore, set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 15.4.1991 and that of the trial court dated 8.2.1990 and also the ex-parte order dated 5.4.1989. The trial court is directed to afford opportunity and after taking the evidence he should decide afresh original restoration application of Lal Babu.