JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division. Faizabad recommending that the revision against the order dated July 19, 1971 passed by the Judicial Officer (Revenue), Sadar and Tanda in Case No. 248/178/886 under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The revisionist, Ramnath had filed a suit under Section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against Nepal and others. The trial court has famed issue No. 3 as follows: 'Is the suit barred by consolidation proceedings as alleged'. The trial court also ordered that this issue will be treated as the preliminary issue and will be decided first. The revisionist has challenged this order. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that consolidation proceedings having been closed more than eleven years back, the suit could not be legally held to be barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act in view of the plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiff. It has been further contended that issue No. 5 had to be decided on merits after recording complete evidence even if adjudication of co-tenancy rights based on other grounds was held to be barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Issue No. 5 is to the effect whether the plaintiff had acquired Sirdari rights by adverse possession in the land. It has been contended that the trial court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it in not deciding issue No. 5 on merits. 5. A preliminary issue is one which is an issue of law and upon the decision of which the whole case can be decided. The learned counsel for the opposite party has rightly pointed out that the issue No. 3 is an issue of law. If it is found that the suit was barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the revenue Court would have no jurisdiction whatsoever to proceed with the case. It is of course open to the revisionist to satisfy the trial court that the bar under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act did not operate in the case. It is of course open to the revisionist to satisfy the trial court that the bar under Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act did not operate in the case. At this stage there is no reason to presume that the trial court would not consider the arguments of both the parties before deciding this issue or would decide the issue against the revisionist. As against this, issue No. 5 relating to the plea of adverse possession is an issue of fact as well as law and, therefore, cannot be treated as a preliminary issue. The decision of this issue on merits will come only after issue No. 3 has been decided that it has been held that the suit was not barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner has correctly held that there is no error of jurisdiction or illegality in the order of the trial court and the revision is fit to be dismissed. Agreeing with the recommendation, I hereby dismiss the revision.