JUDGMENT J.B. Singh, Member - This is a reference dated 19-7-1973 made by learned Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, recommending to reject the revision application as not pressed which was so decided by Mr. B.R. Vohra, by his order dated 21-4-1975. This order of Mr. B.R. Vobra was set aside by order dated 17-9-1981 by the Bench and that reference was restored which has been heard according to the directions of the Bench. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have perused the record. 3. The brief facts of the case ate that by order dated 12-3-1973 on application dated 9-3-1973 and vakalatnama dated 12-3-1973 order was passed for issuance of sanad to Sitaram. 4. On 10-5-1973 Sitaram filed application that some imposter had applied and had deposited 20 times of rent for issuance of sanad in his name. The order of issuance of sanad was cancelled by order dated 28-5-1973 after some inquiry. 5. The applicant had filed an application on 12-6-1973 for impleading her as a donee of application Sitaram which was fixed for orders on 24-6-1973 but due to the present revision application the proceedings were stayed for order dated 10-5-1973 passed by learned Commissioner. 6. It has been argued that the deposit of 20 times made by Sitaram cannot be withdrawn and order dated 28-5-1973 without jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on Asha Ram v. Bhagwan Din, 1979 R.D. 267 Banshi Dhar v. Smt. Dhirajadhar and others, 1971 R.D. 371 (H.C., F.B.). 7. It has been argued in reply that the order dated 28-5-1973 is based on finding of fact that the deposit was made and application was filed by some imposter as not applicable and the findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision. 8. From the perusal of the trial court it appears that full and proper inquiry has not been conducted in the matter. In the application dated 10-5-1973 in para 7 the opposite party Sita Ram had alleged to examine Harinandan Lal petition writer, Sri Mahesh Chandra Dixit Vakil and Data Ram son of Pooran, Laturi son of Ranjit the witnesses of the Vakalatnama but Dixit filed application and was not examined and even the petition writer was not examined and Sri M.C. Dixit alleged that he bad filed the application and bad signed the Vakalatnama on the identification of the witnesses of the vakalatnama. The examination of those witnesses of the vakalatnama and of Sri M.C. Dixit and the scribe of the application was, therefore, very essential which was not done by the trial court. 9. The statements of Bhudeo Singh Lekhpal Vedram Singh ex-Pradhan is based on hearsay, therefore no proper inquiry was conducted by the trial court. 10. In view of the above, the revision application is liable to be allowed and the order dated 18-6-1973 is liable to be set aside as fresh full inquiry according to law requires to be conducted and the application of the applicant Smt. Ganga Devi dated 12-6-1973 is liable to be allowed for the ends of justice so that full inquiry can be conducted. 11. In view of the above, the revision application is allowed. The order of the trial court dated 18-5-1973 is set aside. The application dated 13-6-1973 of Smt. Ganga Devi is allowed. She shall be impleaded as a party being highly interested person being donee of Sitaram and the case is remanded to the trial court for making full inquiry on the application of Sitaram dated 10-5-1973 and the persons mentioned in para 7 of the application shall be examined, either by the parties or as court witnesses and the parties shall be allowed to adduce evidence then matter should be decided according to law.