JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, M. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 17, 1975 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in appeal No. 125 of 1972-73, Mathura. 2. The facts are briefly that a suit under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. Act was dismissed by the trial court on February 23, 1973. 3. A first appeal against this order has been allowed and the case remanded for fresh decision by the Additional Commissioner who has taken note of the fact that the Presiding Officer of the trial court had not recorded statements of the witnesses in his own hand-writing and has also not given any certificate in terms of Order XVIII, Rules 4 and 5, Civil Procedure Code that the statements had been recorded under his supervision and direction. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that a ruling of the Board of Revenue relied upon by the Additional Commissioner has been superseded by a subsequent judgment of the Board reported in 1976 R.D. 339 which is to the effect that recording of a certificate as mentioned above is not necessary. 5. The argument of the learned. counsel is correct so far as it goes. It is true that recording of a certificate that the statements had been taken down in the presence of the Presiding Officer and under his personal direction and superintendence, is not mandatory. Order XVIII, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code does not prescribes any such certificate. 6. The Rule does, however, prescribe that the statement should be recorded in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the Presiding Officer. In the present instance, the original file has been summoned by me and does not provide any evidence that the statements had been so recorded. The Additional Commissioner, therefore, acted rightly in setting aside the judgment of the learned trial court and remanding the case for fresh decision. 7. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed with the observation that the trial court should record evidence afresh and give its findings irrespective of those already given in the judgment dated February 23, 1973.