JUDGMENT J.S. Gupta, M. - This is a reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut division recommending that the revision filed by Shiksha Pracharani Sabha Rajendra Higher Secondary School, Bilaspur and other be dismissed. 2. Briefly stated the facts are the Jagan Prasad plaintiff opposite party instituted the suit under section 209 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act against the Shiksha Pracharani Sabha and other. The defendant contested the suit on various grounds. During the pendency of the suit a Vakil Commissioner was appointed to inspect the spot. He submitted his on March 6, 1972. The file was transferred to another court on March 18, 1972 and this new court having noted that no objection had been filed against the same accepted it on April 7, 1972. On May 1, 1972, the defendants were absent and the case was ordered to proceed ex parte against them. The file was transferred yet once more to third court on September 3, 1972. An application was moved on January 6, 1973 on behalf of the defendants before this court for setting aside the ex parte order dated May 1, 1972 and the court passed the following order on it the same days:- Heard the parties. For justice and enquity ex parte order dated May 1, 1972 is set aside and the applicant is allowed to cross-examine plaintiff's witnesses. The applicant shall pay Rs. 10/- as cost to the plaintiff. An objection purporting to have been prepared on March 14, 1972 against the Vakil Commissioner's report was also presented before the court on January 6, 1973 on behalf of the defendants. But the court rejected this application on April 2, 1973 on the ground that the order dated April 7, 1972 whereby the report of the Vakil Commissioner had been accepted, had not been got set aside by the defendants. On April 3, 1973, an application was moved on behalf of the Siksha Pracharani Sabha, praying that the order of confirmation of the Vakil Commissioner's report be cancelled, and the defendants be given an opportunity to file objections. The court, by its order, dated April 24, 1973, rejected the application on the ground that report of the Vakil Commissioner had already been confirmed (by his predecessor, on April 7, 1972. Feeling aggrieved by this order. The court, by its order, dated April 24, 1973, rejected the application on the ground that report of the Vakil Commissioner had already been confirmed (by his predecessor, on April 7, 1972. Feeling aggrieved by this order. Siksha Pracharani Sabha and others filed a revision before the learned Commissioner on May 14, 1973, praying that order of confirmation of the Vakil Commissioner's report be set aside, and the revisionist-applicants he allowed to file objections. A second application along with an affidavit was also filed the same day, praying for stay of further proceedings before the trial court but it was rejected summarily by the Additional Commissioner without giving any reasons. Yet another application was moved on June 4, 1973, praying that the hearing of the revision may be fixed early, as the matter in revision was very important, and if the suit was decided by the trial court prior to the decision of the revision, it will cause irreparable loss and hardship to the applicant, and the purpose of the revision could be frustrated. The additional Commissioner ordered that this application be put up in the 4th week of September 1973. A third application was moved by the revisionist on July 9.10.1973 with the same prayer, and also for summoning the file of the original suit from the lower court. The Additional Commissioner ordered on July 13, 1973 Let the record be summoned for July 31, 1973. Meanwhile, the proceedings in the suit before the trial court went on, and on July 11, 1973, when the defendants were absent, the trial court passed the following orders: "Defendants absent Even their counsel is absent. Suit to proceed ex parte." The plaintiff examined himself and P.W.2 Mahi Lal in support of his claim. Suit is decreed ex parte with costs and damages amounting to Rs. 250/- a year. Let defendants be ejected." On July 12, 1973, an application, along with an affidavit for setting aside the aforesaid order was moved before the trial court, and it was ordered on July 16, 1973 that if he put up with file the following day; and it was ordered then, viz. on July 17, 1973, 'Let notice go to the plaintiff for 10/8'. After this order of July 17, 1973, there is no further order-sheet in the trial court's file as it was, in the meanwhile, summoned by the Additional Commissioner. on July 17, 1973, 'Let notice go to the plaintiff for 10/8'. After this order of July 17, 1973, there is no further order-sheet in the trial court's file as it was, in the meanwhile, summoned by the Additional Commissioner. means that the the application, dated July 12, 1973, for setting aside the ex parte order, dated July 11, 1973, is still pending before the trial court for orders. 3. When the aforesaid revision came up of hearing before the learned Additional Commissioner on September 12, 1973, it was pointed out to him on behalf of the opposite party that the suit had already been disposed of on July 11, 1973, and that the aforesaid revision had become infructuous. Accepting this contention, the learned Additional Commissioner recommended to the Board the same day, i.e. on September 12, 1973, that the revision be dismissed. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the view of the learned Additional Commissioner is entirely incorrect. According to him, the application, dated July 12, 1973 praying for setting aside the ex parte order, dated July 11, 1973, was still pending before the trial court, and if that order was set aside, proceeding of the suit would get revived. He further said that sufficient cause for restoration has been disclosed in the application. dated July 12, 1973, which was moved the very day following the day the ex-parte order was passed. He stated that the trial court should have invited both parties to file objections against the report of the Vakil Commissioner. He further said that sufficient cause for restoration has been disclosed in the application. dated July 12, 1973, which was moved the very day following the day the ex-parte order was passed. He stated that the trial court should have invited both parties to file objections against the report of the Vakil Commissioner. He cited A.I.R. 1955 Madhya Bharat, page 113 wherein it was laid down as follows:- "The function of the Commissioner is to place himself as an assistant to the Court so as to enable the court to understand and appreciate the accounts and come to a decision, that is why when a report is submitted by a Commissioner the court invites objections from the parties and after disposing of the objections passes a final decree." He also referred to A.I.R. 1961 Orissa page 140 wherein it was held that 'The law expressly provides that sufficient opportunities must be given to the parties to file objections to the report of the Commissioner, before final decree is passed." He started further that the interests of justice demanded that the revisionist be permitted to challenge the report of the Vakil Commissioner. He stated that the order dated May 1, 1972 having been set aside, the order regarding confirmation of the report of the Vakil Commissioner should also have been set aside. He urged that the trial court acted illegally in rejecting the application of the revisionists. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted in reply that the suit itself having been disposed of the revision directed against an interlocutory order is not maintainable. According to him, the contingency arising out of the setting aside of ex parte order dated July 11, 1973, cannot be seen at the present moment. 6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. The file of the trial court shows that the Vakil Commissioner had submitted his report to one Court, it was confirmed by its successor court, and defendants' application dated January 6, 1973 and April 3, 1973 were rejected by a third (successor) Court on April 2, 1973 and April 24, 1973 respectively. There is nothing on record to inspire a confidence that the last successor court applied its mind properly to the facts and circumstances of the matter before it. There is nothing on record to inspire a confidence that the last successor court applied its mind properly to the facts and circumstances of the matter before it. This fact was also lost sight of by the learned lower appellate court. In fact, in the revision, filed before it, it did not go into this question at all, and recommended its dismissal to the Board merely on the ground that since the original suit had already been decided, the revision had become infructuous. The position, in fact, was not that simple, because there was an application along with an affidavit, dated July 12, 1973 for setting aside the ex parte order dated July 11, 1973, already pending before the trial court at that time. In other words, the ex-parte decision, to which the Additional Commissioner has referred, was not final at that time as, an application for setting it aside was already pending decision before the trial court and the learned lower appellate court could not, assume that the ex-parte, decision would necessarily be maintained by the trial court when the application and the affidavit, dated July 12, 1973 would be considered by it (and for which it had already directed notices to be issued to the parties for August 10, 1973). The learned lower appellate court should, therefore, have applied its mind to the main question involved in the revision before it, namely, whether the order of confirmation of Vakil Commissioner report should be set aside or not merits and in the circumstances of the case. 7. A perusal of the record of the learned lower appellate court also reveals that the revision application and dated May 14, 1973, was accompanied with an application and affidavit for stay of proceedings before the trial court, but this stay application was summarily rejected by the learned lower appellate court, without mentioning any reason. The second application dated June 4, 1973, disclosing the urgency of the matter, was also treated by the learned lower appellate court in a very routine fashion, when it directed that the same be put up after 3 months. Then, the last application dated July 9/10, 1973, once again emphasizing the need for early disposal of the revision, was similarly considered very casually. Then, the last application dated July 9/10, 1973, once again emphasizing the need for early disposal of the revision, was similarly considered very casually. The Additional Commissioner should have appreciated the urgency of the matter, and even if he rejected the stay application, he should have mentioned cogent reasons for the same, also should at least have summoned the record immediately, so that, during the pendency of the revision, there was no occasion for the trial court to proceed within suit and, as happened later, decide it ex-parte. 8. The record thus shows that not only did the trial court omit to invite any objections from the parties against the report of the Valik Commissioner; but the learned lower appellate court also failed to exercise its appellate authority in a proper, judicial and fair manner by not going at all into the sole question raised before it, and not appreciating the implications involved in the case. Under the circumstances, there has been a miscarriage of justice, and I do not accept the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner in the present revision, but allow the same, and set aside the order dated April 24, 1973 of the trial court, and quash the order dated April 7, 1972 of the trial court confirming the report of the Vakil Commissioner. 9. In the normal course the revision should be remanded to the Additional Commissioner for re-hearing and decision in the light of the above observations. But I find from a perusal of the record that the trial court's ex parte order dated July 11, 1973 (against which an application dated July 12, 1973, along with an affidavit of the same case on behalf of the revisionists, are pending for its setting aside) also is a most perfunctory order. It shows the undue haste and lack of attention which the trial court gave to this matter. Not only was an order passed to proceed ex-parte, but evidence of two witnesses was also hastily recorded and a summary order deciding the case ex parte passed. This order of July 11, 1973 smells like that of an executive order rather than a judicial one. By no stretch of imagination can it be regarded as a judgment in the eyes of law. This order of July 11, 1973 smells like that of an executive order rather than a judicial one. By no stretch of imagination can it be regarded as a judgment in the eyes of law. Para 34 of the Revenue Court Manual provides in details as to what shall be the contents of a judgment to be pronounced by a court of first instance. Order XX, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. The ex-parte order, passed in the present case, by the trial court does not fulfil any of the requirements of law at all. It too has rebutted in miscarriage of justice, and further indicates that the officer dealing with the case was not only ignorant of the rules of procedure and law, but also acted in a slip-shod manner. 10. Instead of remanding the case to the Additional Commissioner, therefore, from whom, after a rehearing and decision of the revision, it will have to go back to the trial court, first for orders of the application, dated July 12, 1973, and then for further action, I consider this a very fit case in which the Board should, in the interest of justice and expediency, (as the matter is already pending for about 7 years without a final decision), exercise its inherent revisionary powers under Section 333 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. in 1949 R.D. 55, it was held by the Board that 'The words used in section 275 of the U.P. Tenancy act are' 'The Board may call for the record of any case 'Which makes it quite obvious that the Board may, in addition to entertaining applications from parties concerned, proceed suo moto, or on the report of any subordinate authority'. In 1949 In 1949 R.D. 89, it was held by the Board that when in appeal does not lie, it fails, but the Board, as revising authority, may exercise powers of revision suo moto in a fit case. In 1956 R.D. 247, And 1973 R.D. 307, similar view was held by the Board. 11. In 1949 In 1949 R.D. 89, it was held by the Board that when in appeal does not lie, it fails, but the Board, as revising authority, may exercise powers of revision suo moto in a fit case. In 1956 R.D. 247, And 1973 R.D. 307, similar view was held by the Board. 11. Not accepting the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, the revision has already been allowed and the orders, dated April 24, 1973 and April 7, 1972, of the trial court have already been set aside above. The application, dated July 12, 1973, of the defendant-revisionists against the ex parte order, dated July 11, 1973 of the trial court (which is no judgment in the eyes of law) is also allowed, and the trial court's order, dated July 11, 1973, is set aside under my inherent powers. The record will be sent back to the trial court, who will now first in its objections against the Vakil Commissioner's report, give the parties an opportunity of being heard, and then decide whether to confirm that report or to appoint another Vakil Commissioner with such directions to him, as it may by necessary. It will then give both the parties opportunity of adducing evidence regarding the merits of the case, and thereafter decide it in accordance with law. 12. A copy of this order will be sent to the Commissioner, Meerut Division, and Collector, Bulandshahr, for necessary action.