JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated March 7, 1972 passed by Sri G.S. Seth, Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division in Appeal No. 239 of 1970-71, under Section 229-B/209 U.P. Z.A. and L.R. 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 personal service. 3. Matadin Singh had filed a suit under Sections 229-B/209 U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act which was decreed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Unnao on January 12, 1971. The defendants, Subedar Singh and another filed an appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside the trial Court's order and remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that the trial court should frame certain additional issues and record further evidence and thereafter decide the case afresh. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are, firstly, that the learned Additional Commissioner has acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in ordering fresh trial of the suit; secondly, that the defendant-opposite parties who were appellants before the learned Additional Commissioner had not challenged the Judgment of the trial court on the ground that it had omitted to frame certain issues and the learned Addl. Commissioner was, therefore, not justified in setting up a new case for the appellants thirdly that the trial court did frame proper and correct issues on all the material propositions of law and fact, and lastly that it is a settled law that both the parties having gone to the trial fully knowing the rival case and having led evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that the absence of any issue, if any, was fatal to the case or that there was mistrial which vitiated the proceedings. 5. A perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the opposite parties before the Additional Commissioner shows that they had taken a number of grounds in the appeal, but non-framing of any issues was not one of the grounds. 5. A perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the opposite parties before the Additional Commissioner shows that they had taken a number of grounds in the appeal, but non-framing of any issues was not one of the grounds. The learned Additional Commissioner has, however, failed to consider any of these grounds in his judgment, and has been led astray into a new plea that is the non-framing of certain issues. The appellate court's duty is to consider the grounds of appeal taken before it. It is not open to the appellate court to ignore all these grounds and instead consider entirely new grounds which have not even been raised by the appellants. Moreover, none of the three issues which the Additional Commissioner has raised are material for the decision of the case. Thus, the learned Additional Commissioner has mentioned that in para 11 of the written statement of the State a question of limitation was taken. But the state is not the appellant and hence this issue no longer arises. Again, the learned Additional Commissioner has mentioned that the trial court should have framed an issue on the maintainability of the suit under Section 229-B, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, in view of para 3 of the written statement of defendant No. 1 and para 15 of the written statement of defendant No. 2. But a perusal of the written statements would show that the defendants were challenging not the scope of the suit under Section 229-B, U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, but the right of the plaintiff to get a declaration in his favour. This objection is fully covered by the issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 7 which are as follows: (1) Whether plaintiff is the Sirdar of the land in suit? (2) Whether the Patta is valid and in accordance with rule? (3) Whether the G.S. and State are stopped to challenge the validity of the Patta? (4) Whether a single suit cannot be filed for plot Nos. 963 and 1341, if so, its effect. 6. As regards the question of identifiability, the plaintiff has given specific plot numbers and their areas. Excerpts from the Khatauni, C.H. Form and Khasra have also been filed. The defendants did not produce any evidence to the effect that the land was not identifiable. They have also not taken this ground in their appeal. 6. As regards the question of identifiability, the plaintiff has given specific plot numbers and their areas. Excerpts from the Khatauni, C.H. Form and Khasra have also been filed. The defendants did not produce any evidence to the effect that the land was not identifiable. They have also not taken this ground in their appeal. Therefore, their objection to the identifiability of the land shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. The learned Additional Commissioner has committed illegality and material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction in not deciding the appeal on merits and remanding the case on the ground of non-framing of certain issues. 7. The result is that I hereby allow the revision, set aside the impugned order, and direct that the learned Additional Commissioner shall hear and decide the first appeal on merits in accordance with law.