JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, Member. - Revision No. 209 has been filed against the order dated December 27, 1967 passed by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur in appeal against the order dated December 24, 1966 passed by Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Deoria refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree dated July 1, 1966 in a case under Section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Originally this was filed as a second appeal but it has been treated as revision on the request of the petitioner. 2. Revision No. 200 has been filed against the order dated June 18, 1968 passed by the A.S.D.O. Salempur, district Deoria in a case under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 3. Brief facts of the case in Revision No. 209 are that an ex-parte decree was passed in the case on July 1, 1966 by the trial court. On August 20, 1966, the defendant applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Ram Murat one of the plaintiffs filed objection. Other two plaintiffs Surajdeo and Ram Kaul did not file any objection. 4. On December 24, 1966, the trial court rejected the restoration application filed by the defendant. 5. The original defendant Ram Chandi died. His son Ram Briksh fled appeal before the Additional Commissioner. He too is now dead. Suraj Deo and Ram Kaul, plaintiffs, were not impleaded as parties in the appeal before the Additional Commissioner. An application was moved by Ram Briksh, defendant, for their impleadment as parties to the appeal. It was alleged that their names were not mentioned in the order of the trial court and hence they could not be impleaded in the appeal. 6. On December 27, 1967, the Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur rejected the application for impleadment of Surajdeo and Ram Kaul as parties to the appeal and at the same time dismissed the appeals treating it as defective. Revision No. 209 has been filed against the order dated December 27, 1967 passed by the Additional Commissioner. 7. Brief facts of the case in Revision No. 200 are that an ex-parte decree was passed against the defendants on July 1, 1966. The application of the defendant for setting aside that ex-parte decree was dismissed on December 24, 1966. 8. Revision No. 209 has been filed against the order dated December 27, 1967 passed by the Additional Commissioner. 7. Brief facts of the case in Revision No. 200 are that an ex-parte decree was passed against the defendants on July 1, 1966. The application of the defendant for setting aside that ex-parte decree was dismissed on December 24, 1966. 8. In Revision No. 209 the Board of Revenue passed an order on March 13, 1968 and directed that the Amaldaramad proceeding and the operation of the orders passed by the courts below be stayed on August 16, 1966, and Amaldaramad on the basis of the ex-parte decree had already been affected. 9. On June 18, 1968, the A.S.D.O., Salempur, district Deoria ordered Tahsildar to comply with the Board's order staying the proceedings in the lower court. Plaintiffs filed revision against the order dated June 18, 1968. 10. On November 30, 1968 the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division observed that the ex-parte decree was passed on July 1, 1966 and Amaldaramad on the basis of that decree was made on August 16, 1966 i.e., long before the issue of the stay order dated March 13, 1968 passed by the Board. He further observed that under the circumstances, there was no justification for the A.S.D.O. to ask Tahsildar to comply with the Board's order. He, accordingly, recommended that the revision be allowed and the order of the lower court be set aside. 11. In Revision No. 209, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the names of Suraj deo and Ram Kaul, plaintiffs, were not mentioned in the order and decree passed by the trial court and hence they were not impleaded as parties in the the appeal. He contended that the mistake had been inadvertently committed and, therefore, the lower appellate court should have allowed the application of the petitioner for impleadment of Ram Kaul and Suraj Deo, plaintiffs, as parties to the appeal. He further contended that the lower appellate court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally in rejecting the application of the petitioner. He further contended that the lower appellate court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally in rejecting the application of the petitioner. He placed reliance on the case Sudama and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others, 1965 A.L.J. 39 in the summary of cases in which it was held that:- "Further since the names of the State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha were not to be found in the trial court's decree, the non-impleadment of these parties could have been condoned, for it is a well-established principle of law that no one should suffer for the mistake of the Court. If the decree did not disclose the names of the parties the petitioners could justifiably urge before the Court that no decree having been passed in favour of these persons, it was not necessary for the petitioners to have impleaded them." 12. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that only one of the plaintiffs Ram Murat was impleaded as party in the appeal and the other two plaintiffs namely Surajdeo and Ram Kaul were not impleaded although they were necessary parties in the appeal. He contended that under the circumstances, the Additional Commissioner rightly dismissed the appeal being defective. He further argued that the Additional Commissioner held that there was gross negligence of the petitioners. He contended that the finding of the Additional Commissioner cannot be assailed. Lastly, he argued that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality and, therefore, revision No. 209 deserves to be dismissed. 13. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties in Revision No. 209 and have perused the record. The names of Surajdeo and Ram Kaul, plaintiffs, were not mentioned in the order and decree passed by the trial court. Under the circumstances, the non-impleadment of these persons should have been condoned by the Additional Commissioner. It is well-established principle of law that no one should suffer from the mistake of the court. The observations of the his Lordship in the case Sudama v. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others (supra) referred to above apply in all fours to the present case. It is well-established principle of law that no one should suffer from the mistake of the court. The observations of the his Lordship in the case Sudama v. Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and others (supra) referred to above apply in all fours to the present case. The learned Additional Commissioner failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it and acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally in rejecting the application of the petitioner for the impleadment of Surajdeo and Ram Kaul as parties in the appeal and erred in dismissing the appeal. I accordingly, allow the application of the petitioner for impleadment of Surajdeo and Ram Kaul as parties. The order of the Additional Commissioner dated December 27, 1967 is set aside and the case is remanded to it with the direction that it should decide the appeal afresh on merits according to law. Revision No. 209 is allowed in the light of the above observations. 14. Ex-parte decree was passed in the case on July 1, 1966. Amaldaramad on the basis of that decree was made on August 16, 1966 i.e., long before the issue of the stay order passed by the Board on March 13, 1968. In the circumstances, the stay order could not be given effect to. In view of the above discussion the order of A.S.D.O., Salampur dated June 18, 1968 in Revision No. 200 directing Tahsildar to comply with the Board's order staying the proceedings is set aside. Revision No. 209 and Revision No. 200 are allowed in the light of the above observation.