JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed by Ram lakhan under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in he Board of Revenue against the judgment and order of additional Commissioner. Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 12-8-1981 passed by appeal No. 318 of 1978 against the order and judgment of Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Varanasi dated 9-8-1978, passed in restoration proceeding against the decree and judgment dated 28-4-1976 under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that Salkaran filed suit on 22-3-1976 under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. of 1951 in the court of Assistant Collector 1st Class, Varanasi. The summons were served on the recorded tenure-holders on denial and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 28-4-1976. Ram Lakhan filed the restoration application on 24-7-1976. That he came to know about the summon. There is also no endorsement when ex-parte decree on 22-7-1976. The restoration application was opposed by Salkaran by filing the objection on 13-2-1988. After taking the evidence of the parties the restoration application was dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 9-8-1978 against which first appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner had allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court in restoration application I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner has come to the conclusion that the summons was not served n the recorded tenure-holder Ram Lakhan. The learned Additional Commissioner concluded that when there has been no service of the summon there is no question of any irregularity in the service of the summons. Against this finding of the additional Commissioner this revision has been filed in this court on the ground that the judgment of the appellate court is no judgment in the eye of law. In the revision finding of fact of the first appellate court has also been challenged by the revisionist. However, he also contended that when there was irregularity in the service of the summon the decree cannot be set aside as provided under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code. He also contended that the ruling cited by the opposite party was wrongly relied by the first appellate court. 4. The suit was filed on 22-3-1976. Summonses were issued for 19-4-1976. He also contended that the ruling cited by the opposite party was wrongly relied by the first appellate court. 4. The suit was filed on 22-3-1976. Summonses were issued for 19-4-1976. On 19-4-1976 the suit was proceeded ex-parte and the case was fixed for 24-4-1976 for evidence. On 24-4-1976 the evidence was taken and the case was fixed for ex-parte on 28-4-1976. The order sheet dated 22-3-1976 and 19-4-1976 has not been signed by the Presiding Officer. The order-sheet dated 27-4-1976 was signed by the Presiding Officer. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 28-4-1976. This order has also been signed by the Presiding Officer. The summon which was sent to the Nagar Mahapalika, State and defendant Ram Lakhan was not verified after the service of the summon. There is also no endorsement when the summon was received in the Tahsil and Tahsil authorities are responsible for the service of the summon and have endorsed the process server to serve the summon. Neither this fact has been proved during the restoration proceeding by adducing evidence by any authority of the Tahsil who deputed the process server to serve the summon. The summon was served to D.G.C.(R) on 19-4-1976. Summon was served to Gaon Sabha on 17-4-1976 and the summon is alleged to have been served on the defendant Ram Lakhan on 15-4-76. These summons were filed in the trial court on 23-3-1976 i.e., one day after the filing of he suit This shows that much care was taken in this case in serving the summons. I do not know why the process server went on two dates to serve the Gaon Sabha and the defendant on 17-4-1976 and 15-4-1976. It is true that the revisional court has no power to consider the fact of the case but the Board of Revenue while exercising the revisional power and consider also those facts which has not been considered by the trial court in order to decide the whole controversy correctly and legally, therefore, the finding which has been challenged by the revisionist against the finding recorded by the first appellate court can never be sustained. Whatever I want to say that the finding recorded by the first appellate court that the summon was not served on the defendant is fully proved by the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Whatever I want to say that the finding recorded by the first appellate court that the summon was not served on the defendant is fully proved by the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. When the service of the summon by process server was made it was served on the identification of the defendant by the plaintiff. Only one witness was present there. That too was the person of another village whose parentage has not been given in the report of the process server. He has not been examined. Then only witness for the service of the summon remains the process server and the plaintiff. I do not understand how the process server can say that he served the summon on right person on the identification of plaintiff. It is highly possible that plaintiff might have mislead to the process server to serve the summon who was in collusion with the plaintiff, hence it cannot be said with all possibility that the plaintiff has indicated the right person to serve the summon. These circumstances also prove that the service of the summon is fictitious The process server should have taken the help of the persons of the same village to identify the defendant and to serve the summon properly. 6. There is no order of the court to proceed ex-parte. The clerk of the court only have written the order-sheet to proceed ex-parte. There is no signature of the Presiding officer on that order-Sheet too what to say of passing order by applying his mind on the service of the summon. In these circumstances of the case there is no force in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. There is no necessity to interfere in the order of the Additional Commissioner in the exercise of the power under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The trial court decree dated 28-4-1976 is set aside and the suit is restored and the parties should be given proper opportunity present their case and the trial court to decide the suit in accordance with law.