JUDGMENT R.K. Dhusiya, Member - This references has been made by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur by his recommendation order dated 24.11.82 by which he has recommended to allow the revision and set aside the order dated 20.12.1980 passed by the trial court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a patta was granted in favour of Khaganchi. The revisionist filed objection against the said lease. The trial court on 23.1.1979 cancelled the lease. Later on Khajanchi filed an application on 28.3.1979 alleging that the case was fixed for argument on 23.1.1979 and he has come to the court on the said date but since the court, was closed he returned back and subsequently the case was decided by the trial court on tour. The Opp. party had no knowledge of the decision of the case and later on in the village through rumer he came to know about the said order and he got enquiry and then he came to know that the case was decided ex-parte. He prayed that the order dated 23.1.1979 be recalled. Jeetan filed objection. After hearing the arguments of the parties and going through the file the trial court set aside the order dated 23.1.79 on 20.12.1980. Aggrieved by that order a revision was filed before the learned Addl. Commissioner who by his order dated 24.11.1982 made a recommendation to this court. Hence, the present reference has come up before me. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have also seen the relevant papers on the file. No one is present on behalf of other side in spite of notice. Objection has also been filed against the said recommendation order. 4. In the objection it is alleged that the order was passed ex-parte and when the full facts were brought to the notice of the court it rightly not set aside the order; that the learned Addl. Commissioner has wrongly exercised the jurisdiction vested in it as there is no provision for limitation for such an order. 5. From the perusal of file it is evident that the application for setting aside that order was filed after expiry of period of limitation; that the applicant neither filed any application nor Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay nor any affidavit has been given to give reason for the delay in filing the application. 5. From the perusal of file it is evident that the application for setting aside that order was filed after expiry of period of limitation; that the applicant neither filed any application nor Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay nor any affidavit has been given to give reason for the delay in filing the application. Since the order has been passed on merits and hence, the application is time barred and it was rightly set aside by the learned Addl. Commissioner. The objection filed by the objector has got no substance. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner. 6. In view of the above, I allow the revision, and set aside the order dated 20.12.1980 passed by the trial court.