JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, recommending that the revision filed against the order dated September 22, 1970 passed by the Judicial Officer Sadar and Tanda, district Faizabad in Case No. 32/297 under Section 209, U.P. Z.A. and Land Reforms Act may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The opposite party, Srimati Kishuna had filed a suit under Section 209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the revisionist Haribhajan, impleading Gaon Sabha Madhupur and the State of U.P. also as parties. Haribhajan filed a written statement on April 3, 1970 contesting the suit. Seven issues were framed by the trial court on May 22, 1970. On August 5, 1970, the revisionist Haribhajan filed an application for amendment of his written statement which was allowed by the trial court. On September 22, 1970 the trial court ordered that the amendment in the written statement did not call for any additional issues and fixed the case for wearing on November 21, 1970. Haribhajan has come up in revision against the order of the trial court dated September 22, 1970. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that, an additional issued should have been framed on his plea taken in his amendment application dated August 5, 1970 to the effect that the defendant was the recorded occupant in 1356 Fasli and was in cultivatory possession in 1959 Fasli and had thus become an Adhivasi of the land and thereafter acquired Sirdari rights. The learned counsel for the opposite party has, on the other hand, contended that this plea is already covered by the issues Nos. 3 and 4 which are as follows: "(3) Whether defendant No. 1 is trespasser and liable to ejectment? (4) Whether defendant No. 1 is Sirdar of the suit plot." 5. The material question to be determined is whether the defendant revisionist is the Sirdar of the land in suit. How he acquired Sirdari rights is a matter of evidence. In my opinion, therefore, the trial court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in not framing any further issues. 6. The material question to be determined is whether the defendant revisionist is the Sirdar of the land in suit. How he acquired Sirdari rights is a matter of evidence. In my opinion, therefore, the trial court did not commit any illegality or irregularity in not framing any further issues. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party has referred to Kunju Kesavan v. M.M. Phillip, AIR 1964 S.C. 164 , in which a learned Bench of the Supreme Court has laid down the principle that where both parties went to trial fully understanding the central fact in the case, the absence of an issue did not lead to a mis-trial sufficient to vitiate the decision. This very principle has been reaffirmed in Hirabai v. Bhagirathibai, AIR 1969 M.P. 241 and Ram Bhavan v. Jata Shanker Tiwari, 1970 R.D. 502. The same principle had been stated earlier in Nadunuri Kameswaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 S.C. 884 by another learned Full Bench of Supreme Court. 7. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the original suit has since been decided by the trial court and the revision has become infructuous. I agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that the revision has no force and hereby dismissed. it. 8. C.C.O. No. 3078 for R.D.