This is an application in revision under sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, against an appellate order of the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur, reversing the order of the Collector Bharatpur, dated 2.3.54 by which the appeal of the applicant was partly allowed in respect of an application for the correction of entries in the khasra Teep of Svt. 2008. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant Chirmoli applied to the S.D.O. Bharatpur on 26.7.52 that the entries in Khasra Girdavari of Svt. 2008 in respect of Khasra numbers 503, 2245 and 2252 to 2256 of village Sarsena, Tehsil Weir be corrected and his name substituted for that of the opposite party. The S. D. O. after necessary enquiries dismissed the application. The applicant then filed an appeal against the order of the S.D.O. before the Collector, Bharatpur, who partly accepted the appeal and ordered that the applicants name may be substituted for that of the opposite party against Khasra No. 503 and rejected the request for correction of entries as regards others Khasra numbers. The opposite party filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who reversed the order of the Collector and restored that of S. D. O. Hence this revision before the Board. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. Shri Amarsingh Chaturvedi raised two points before me in support of the revision application (1) that the onus of proof of the issue framed by the trial court was wrongly placed on his client and (2) that since no plea of voluntary surrender was raised in the written statement of the opposite party and no issue on that point was framed, the opposite party should not have been allowed to lead evidence on that point. He further contended that since it was admitted by the witness of the opposite party that the applicant cultivated the land as a tenant in Svt. 2007, the burden of proving that the parties had ceased to stand in the relationship of landlord and tenant should have been laid upon the opposite party. 4. As regards the first contention it is clear from a perusal of the plaint that the applicant Chirmoli had alleged in his application that he had been in cultivating possession of the land in dispute in Svt. 4. As regards the first contention it is clear from a perusal of the plaint that the applicant Chirmoli had alleged in his application that he had been in cultivating possession of the land in dispute in Svt. 2008 and requested that on that ground the entries in the Khasra Girdawari be corrected. The opposite party stated in his written statement that the applicant had not been in possession during that year and as such was not entitled to correction of entries. The lower court was therefore, correct in framing the issue as it did namely "whether the applicant was in cultivating possession of the land in dispute in Svt. 2008 and as such was entitled to correction of entry." According to general principles of evidence the onus of proof in a suit or proceeding lies primarily on that party who would be unsuccessful if no evidence at all is given on either side and that the burden of proving a specific issue is upon that party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue or question in dispute. It is thus clear that the burden of proof of the issue framed in this case was correctly placed on the applicant who asserted that he had been in possession, of the land in dispute in Svt. 2008. 5. As regards the second contention it was certainly open to the opposite party to rebut the applicants plea of possession in Svt. 2008 by proving that he had surrendered the tenancy at the end of Svt. 2007 and no separate issue was necessary on that point. Of court when it was admitted by the opposite party that the applicant was a tenant of the land in dispute in Svt. 2007, the burden of proving that he had ceased to be such in Svt. 2008 lay on the opposite party under sec. 109 of the Indian Evidence Act, and as is evident from the record, the opposite party led evidence to this effect and was able to prove successfully from the patwaries roznamacha and other evidence that the applicant had relinquished the tenancy. This contention too has therefore no force. Further, as observed in A. I. R. 1952 Madhya Bharat Page 8, revisional powers should not be exercised in all cases. This contention too has therefore no force. Further, as observed in A. I. R. 1952 Madhya Bharat Page 8, revisional powers should not be exercised in all cases. They are intended to be exercised with a view to sub-serve and not to defeat the ends of justice and where substantial justice has been rendered by the order of the lower court it should not be interfered with in revision, notwithstanding the fact that reasons for the order are not correct, unless gross injustice or hardship would result from failure to do so. In this case, as observed above, substantial justice has been done and I do not see any ground to disagree with the finding of the lower court. The revision is hereby rejected.