JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This appeal has been filed under Section 331(4) of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by way of First Appeal from Order against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, dated 9.7.1984 passed in firs Appeal No. 17 of 1990 against order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Janunpur dated 21.10.1980 passed in restoration proceeding arising out of a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that Tam Dular son of Chhatra Dhari filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 in the trial court against his two brothers Ram Naresh and Ram Pyare sons of Chhatra Dhari and Gaon Sabha. That suit was decreed ex-parte against defendant Ram Pyare and on the admission of Ram Naresh on 14.9.1973. After that Ram Pyare filed restoration application on 8.2.1977 but he absented in that restoration proceeding from 25.4.1977. Many dates were given. After that restoration application was dismissed on 25.10.1977. The lekhpal was summoned and lots were prepared. After that Ram Naresh filed the restoration application on 20.7.1978 to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 14.9.1973. Trial court rejected that restoration application on the ground that he had filed the written statement through the counsel admitting the claim of the plaintiff. The restoration application is time barred. Against that appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner. The trial court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dated 5.10.1978 vide its order dated 11.7.1979. Then again after taking the evidence of the parties the learned trial court came to the conclusion that admission filed by Ram Naresh is genuine and he has knowledge of the proceeding, therefore, dismissed the restoration vide his order dated 21.10.1980. Then again appeal was filed against that order in the court of Additional Commissioner. The learned Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 9.7.1984 have set aside trial court's order dated 21.10.1980 and has remanded the case again for deciding the restoration application. Against this order this first appeal from order has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. Perused the record. 4. Ram Naresh, respondent has stated in his statement that the land was acquired by his father. The plaintiff and defendant are real sons. Against this order this first appeal from order has been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. Perused the record. 4. Ram Naresh, respondent has stated in his statement that the land was acquired by his father. The plaintiff and defendant are real sons. He is aggrieve by the ex-parte decree on account of fact that his share is larger then that of the plaintiff. This is the cause of restoration application. His allegation is that during the trial of suit he was at Calcutta. He came from there in 1976 to lived in the village. He had not signed any Vakalatnama in order to file the written statement, its all forget document. 5. The trial court have not found the contention of the opposite party Ram Naresh to be true. He also came to the conclusion that the burden was on him to prove that he had not signed the Vakalatnama and the written statement on his behalf was filed without any authority. It is very surprising that he has no knowledge of the original proceeding. It is also surprising that he has not been served any notice or summon in that restoration proceeding. He admits that during that proceeding of revision he was in the village but it is surprising that he had no knowledge about the restoration proceedings. No where he has explained how his share is more than ?rd when the property was acquired by the father. It is highly possible that there is no merit in favour of opposite parties in the original suit. Since they are real brothers, therefore, only cause appeared that there is some personal dispute between them. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1976 S.C. page 866 the cases should be remanded rarely. If it is not possible to decide the suit or proceeding by the appellate court. In this case there has been two types of remand from the original court's order. The trial court has given all the circumstances and the finding why he does not believe the contention of the respondent Ram Naresh who has filed the restoration application. There is nothing to be left to inquire again. In this case there has been two types of remand from the original court's order. The trial court has given all the circumstances and the finding why he does not believe the contention of the respondent Ram Naresh who has filed the restoration application. There is nothing to be left to inquire again. The first appellate court if it was not satisfied then it should be recorded it own reasoning and would have set aside the trial court's order in toto and allowed the restoration application. Therefore, the learned counsel argued that the first appellate order should be set aside and the trial court's order should be restored. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that this has been filed first appeal from order. Since the trial court has allowed the appeal against restoration order, therefore, revision should have been filed against that order. There is provision to file revision if the restoration application is allowed. No restoration application has been allowed by the first appellate court. The first appellate court has only set aside the order of the trial court and has remanded the case. Therefore, this appeal under Section 331(4) is maintainable by mentioning the jurisdiction of the court is not taken away and the proceedings cannot be said to be vitiated. 8. After considering all the circumstances of the case and two restoration application I am of the opinion that the order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified and order of the first appellate court is not sustainable and the case should not be remanded frequently again and again. Every court should discharge its own responsibility in judicious way. Hence this First Appeal From Order is allowed and the order of the first appellate court dated 9.7.1984 is set aside and that of the trial court dated 21.10.1080 is restored. Record be sent to the trial court to decide and confirm the lots after inviting the objection of the parities.