The main legal point established in the judgment is that the revisional Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with findings of fact and must ensure that substantial justice is done.

( 1 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order passed by the Board of Revenue, U. P. at Allahabad dated 23-8-1986, the order passed by the Collector (Revenue), Varanasi dated 24-7-1982 and the order dated 17-7-1975 passed by Deputy Collector, Revenue, Varanasi.

( 2 ) RELEVANT and brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that Amar Nath and others, plaintiffs-respondents filed Suit No. 599 of 1974 under S. 229-B of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short the Act) against Vishwanath, Kashi Nath and other defendants for declaration that they were sole Bhumidhars of plot No. 499 (measuring 67 decimal) situated in village Kandawa, district Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the plot in dispute) on the basis of a private partition. The plot in dispute was stated to be recorded in the name of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 17 in the revenue papers. The aforesaid suit proceeded ex parte and was ultimately decreed on 17-7-1975 against the defendants including the present petitioners. The plaintiffs-respondents were, by means of ex parte decree, declared sole Bhumidhars of the land in dispute. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs-respondents thereafter transferred the land in dispute in favour of one Nanku, through a sale deed dated 2-2-1976. It was further pleaded that subsequently Vishwanath, Kashi Nath and other defendants filed Suit No. 104 of 1976 for cancellation of sale deed dated 2-2-1976 referred to above with the allegations that the land in dispute was acquired through a registered Patta dated 20-3-1928, executed by a Zamindar in favour of 12 persons including one Batuk (the predecessor of the plaintiffs) and Lachhiman (father of Vishwanath and Kashi Nath) and predecessor of other defendants, therefore, the plaintiffs and Amar Nath and other defendants were co-Bhumidhars; and that Amar Nath and others had no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Nanku in respect of the plot in dispute.

( 3 ) IN the plaint, the following pedigree of the family was given :- (See pedigree of the family on next page)

( 4 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by Nanku, who filed his written statement on 4-10-1976, a copy of which is contained as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. Nanku denied the facts stated in the plaint and also set up a pedigree contrary to given in the plaint, but subsequently did not participate in the proceedings, hence, the suit was decreed as stated above. Vishwanath came to know about the ex parte decree dated 17-7-1975 on 14-11-1977. He, therefore, filed a restoration application immediately thereafter on 15-11-1977, which was supported by an affidavit. It has been stated that Kashi Nath,petitioner came to know about the ex parte decree dated 17-7-1975 from Vishwanath and Kashi Nath also filed a restoration application on 17-11-1977, which was also supported by an affidavit. Against the aforesaid restoration applications, objections were filed, which were also supported by affidavits filed by the contesting opposite parties. In support of their cases, parties have produced evidence. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 24-7-1982 dismissed the restoration applications filed by Vishwanath and Kashi Nath referred to above. The petitioners thereafter filed appeals before the Commissioner against the judgments and orders passed by the trial Court dated 24-7-1982. The Additional Commissioner after going through the material on the record, recorded finfings of fact to the effect that Shri Nath, Amar Nath and Bhola Nath were served with summons personally while Kashi Nath refused to receive the summon. It was also held that out of five defendants only two filed restoration applications while the other three did not file any restoration application. It was noted that summons bearing signatures of the parti