JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - This is a defendants' second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration. that the plaintiff is bhumidhar of the plots in suit and entitled to remain in possession of the same and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. The suit was filed in the court of the Munsif Utraula (Gonda) who decreed it by his judgment dated 11-12-1961. The appeal filed in the court of the District Judge and heard by the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge. Gonda was dismissed with costs. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Gonda. 2. The suit was instituted in the year 1955 and was decreed. While the decree of the trial court was under appeal an application was moved by the plaintiff for impleading his wife as proforma defendant on an allegation that she had no right in property in suit but since the defendants case was that she and not the plaintiff could be entitled to bring this suit she was being made a proforma defendant. The application was disallowed by the lower appellate court but the revision application filed against that order in this Court was successful and it was directed that the lower appellate court should allow the amendment application and proceed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The lower appellate court thereafter remanded the case to the court of the Munsif to enable the defendants to file fresh written statements because of the amendment of the plaint, to frame the necessary issues and then to decide the case in accordance with law. 3. It is not disputed that at the time the suit was decreed for the first time by the learned Munsif it was necessary for him to refer to the revenue court the issue relating to the tenancy. He, therefore, referred that issue to the revenue court and decided the case on the basis of the finding arrived at by the revenue court. After the remand order the learned Munsif gave an opportunity to the defendants to file their written statements. The newly added defendant admitted the plaintiffs claim. The learned Munsif accepting the old finding recorded by the revenue court on the issue regarding the tenancy once again decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction. After the remand order the learned Munsif gave an opportunity to the defendants to file their written statements. The newly added defendant admitted the plaintiffs claim. The learned Munsif accepting the old finding recorded by the revenue court on the issue regarding the tenancy once again decreed the plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction. As mentioned earlier, an appeal filed by the defendants against that judgment and decree was dismissed. 4. The only point pressed before me at the time this second appeal was heard was that in the year 1958 the Uttar Pradesh Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1958 (Act No. XXXVII of 1958) was passed and by Sec. 79 of that Act Secs. 332, 332-A and 332-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (U.P. Act I of 1951) were deleted. Sec. 87 of U.P. Act XXXVII of 1958 provided as follows:- "Except as provided in Secs. 85 and 86, any amendment made by this Act shall not affect the validity, effect or consequence of anything already done or suffered, or any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred or any jurisdiction already exercised, and any proceedings instituted or commenced before any Court or authority prior to the commencement of this Act shall, notwithstanding any amendment herein made, continue to be heard and decided by such Court or authority. (2) An appeal, review or revision from any suit or proceeding instituted or commenced before any Court or authority prior to the commencement of this Act shall, not withstanding any amendment herein made, lie to the Court or authority to which it would have laid if instituted or commenced before the said commencement. (3) If at the commencement of this Act any suit or legal proceeding is pending before any Court or authority to which the Gaon Sabha is a party, the Gaon Sabha shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, be deemed to be substituted for the Gaon Sabha in such suit or proceeding." 5. A perusal of the relevant provisions of U.P. Act XXXVII of 1958 dearly shows that if on a particular date the issue regarding tenancy had to be disposed of by the revenue court and the same has been heard or disposed of by the revenue court the validity of that decision cannot be questioned in view of the subsequent amendment. 6. 6. The effect of the Amending Act XVIII of 1956 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 was considered in the case of Ram Chandra v. Muneshwar, 1961 ALJ 991 and it was held that by virtue of the amendment made to Sec. 332-B of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, by Sec. 19 of Act XVIII of 1956 it was obligatory on the civil court to refer the question of sirdari to the revenue court for decision in a suit instituted before the commencement of the Act XVIII of 1956. 7. The effect of Sec. 79 of the U.P. Act XXXVII of 1958 was considered by a learned Judge of this Court in the case of Sanwal Singh v. Jwala, 1962 ALJ 384 and it was held that Sec. 79 of the amending Act of 1953 which deleted Sec. 332-B of U.P. Act I 1951, with the result that there is no longer any provision for any issue regarding sirdari, adhivasi or asami rights being referred to the revenue courts for decision. Such an issue in a pending suit has to be heard and decided by the Civil Court itself like any other issue in the suit. 8. There can be no doubt that the case of Sanwal Singh would have applied to the present case if the issue regarding tenancy rights had not been referred to the revenue court before the amending Act XXXVII of 1958 came into force. The question which arises for consideration is whether in the present case after the decree passed by the learned Munsif had been set aside by the lower appellate court and the case remanded to it for rehearing in accordance with law, it was open to the learned Munsif to have ignored the findings recorded by the revenue court and to have proceeded to decide the issue regarding tenancy rights himself. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The addition of a new party, no doubt, necessitated the remand. However, according to the facts averred in the plaint the party added was merely a proforma defendant. She was the wife of the plaintiff and as soon as she filed a written statement it became dear that she was supporting the plaintiff's claim. The addition of a new party, no doubt, necessitated the remand. However, according to the facts averred in the plaint the party added was merely a proforma defendant. She was the wife of the plaintiff and as soon as she filed a written statement it became dear that she was supporting the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the real contest before the lower court remained the same as it was prior to the amendment of the plaint. In these circumstances the learned Munsit could not have said that the decision of the issue regarding the tenancy recorded by the revenue court could be ignored and the same issue had to be decided afresh by the Munsif himself. At the time that issue was decided by the revenue court that court alone had jurisdiction to decide by the question pertaining to tenancy. The issue was very rightly referred to the revenue court and decided by the same. Once a decision had been given by it, it was not open to the Civil Court to have ignored the same. It could not ignore the decision given by the revenue court simply because U.P. Act XXXVII of 1958 had come into force giving jurisdiction to the civil courts to decide the issue about tenancy also. In view of the fact that the real contesting party before the learned Munsif continued to be the same he had no option but to accept the findings of the revenue court already recorded on the issue regarding the tenancy. 10. No other point has been pressed in this appeal which fails and is dismissed with costs.