JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These references have been referred by the Additional commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi vide his recommendation dated 15-5-1989 in revision under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that Shivaji filed a suit that he is bhumidhar of plot No. 377 area 29 decimal of Village Husainabad, district Jaunpur. He pleaded that sunder is wrongly recorded as sirdar whereas no person exist of this name in this village. The Summons were sent but it could not be served, hence a publication was done in a local newspaper 'Prakash' Vide his issue dated 9-2-1972. On the basis of this Sub-Section service the suit wad decided ex-parte on 4-5-1972. The restoration application was filed by Sunder himself claiming that he is sirdar of the suit plot and he also alleged that he had deposited 10 time and had sold the disputed plot. During the pendency of the restoration application he died and his legal heirs his two daughter Smt. Bhagirathi wife of Kishor and Smt. Marjadi wife od Dal Singar were substituted. In the meantime the vendees of Sunder have also applied to set aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that Sunder had sold the plot on 28-8-1971 to them. The trial court set aside the ex-parte decree on 23-11-1983 and the suit was restored. The suit was dismissed on 7-12-1983 in favour of the plaintiff Shivaji which was restored on 10-9-1984. The revision was filed before the learned Additional Commissioner against the order of the restoration and as well as the order dated 12-12-1984. The learned Additional commissioner has recommended that the restoration application has not been properly decided and it should be remanded to the trial court to decided afresh the restoration application. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one is present from the side of the opposite parties. Perused the record. 4. The ex-parte decree dated 4-5-1972 was passed on a substituted service i.e., publication of summon in newspaper, therefore, when the defendant appeared and filed the restoration application it ought to have been allowed at once because substituted service is no service of summon. The property has been sold and the sale was done on 28-8-1971. The suit was filed on 26-10-1971 and the sale-deed was done before that, therefore, the vendees were essential parties. 5. The property has been sold and the sale was done on 28-8-1971. The suit was filed on 26-10-1971 and the sale-deed was done before that, therefore, the vendees were essential parties. 5. In these circumstances of the case, I do not accept the references. The case need to be adjudicated on merit. This order shall govern Reference No. 100, 100-A of 1988-89 Jaunpur.