JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision, against the order dated July 31, 1971, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, setting aside the order dated October 6, 1970, passed by the Asstt. Collector, First Class, Unnao, in a case under Section 209, U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. The opposite parties have not appeared to contest the revision in spite of due service. 3. Opposite party No. 1, Smt. Kalpraj Kunwari, had filed a suit under Section 209 U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the defendant-revisionists. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the land was not identifiable. The Additional Commissioner has however set aside the order of the trial court and remanded the case with the direction that an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff to exhaust all possibilities to identify the land and then decide the case according to law. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are firstly, that the burden of proof for establishing the identity of the land in suit was on the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 which he failed to discharge and no question of giving a further opportunity to the plaintiff to establish the identity of land in suit arises; and secondly, that the Gaon Sabha ought to have been impleaded in the case and the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had failed to implead the Gaon Sabha. 5. The law does not require that the State Government or the Gaon Sabha should be impleaded in all kinds of revenue suits. Where such impleadment is necessary, there is specific provision in the law itself. Sub-section (2) of Section 209 U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act provides that the State Government shall be impleaded as a necessary party where the suit has been filed by a Bhumidhar, Sirdar or Asami. It does not provide that Gaon Sabha should also be impleaded. In the present suit the State Government was impleaded and, therefore, the contention that the suit was not maintainable as the Gaon Sabha had not been impleaded, is not correct. However, the revisionist succeed on the ground that there was no justification for remanding the case to the trial court for giving the plaintiff a further opportunity to establish the identity of the land in suit. However, the revisionist succeed on the ground that there was no justification for remanding the case to the trial court for giving the plaintiff a further opportunity to establish the identity of the land in suit. A definite plea about the non-identifiability of the land had been taken by the defendant. A specific issue No. 3, whether the land in dispute is identifiable? If so, its effect, had been framed by the trial court. It, was, therefore, open to both the parties to produce their evidence on this issue. As advocate Commissioner was also appointed and he gave a very detailed report with map after spot inspection. Again, the plaintiff had full opportunity to file any objection in this court. Thus, both the trial court and the lower appellate court were bound to decide the question of identifiability on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record. The law does not permit the first appellate court to remand a case to the trial court for filling in the lacuna in evidence of either party. Thus, the learned Additional Commissioner has erred materially in the exercise of jurisdiction in remanding the case to the trial court for giving the plaintiff an opportunity to exhaust all possibilities to identify the land. 6. The result, is, that I hereby allow the revision, set aside the order of the learned Additional Commissioner and direct that he shall instead of remanding the case, hear and decide the first appeal on merits in accordance with law.