JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member. - By his order dated 1.3.1976, Sri A.S. Verma, learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, made a recommendation to this Board that revision no. 47(Etawah) filed by Ram Singh be allowed and the order dated 21.9.1970 passed by Sri. N.S. Ansari, learned Collector, Etawah, in a case under section 198(3), U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act (as it then stood) be set aside and the case be remaned to the trial court for decision according to law. 2. Ram Singh, revisionist, had applied to the Collector that lease executed by the Land Management Committee in favour of Ram Sewak be cancelled. The learned Collector did not allow the parties an opportunity to adduce oral evidence, but required them to file documentary evidence only. The parties did so and they also filed affidavits of some witnesses. Subsequently, on two dates Ram Singh, revisionist, gave applications that the persons be called for cross-examination. The learned Collector, Sri N.S. Ansari, passed a detailed order, rejecting this application on the ground that they had been given only to delay the proceedings. The learned Collector further held in the case that the lease had been validly executed and he dismissed the application of Ram Singh. The learned Additional Commissioner, Sri A.S. Verma, found fault with the order of the learned Collector on two grounds viz; (i) that the parties were not allowed to adduce oral evidence or to cross-examine the persons who had filed affidavits and (ii) that the trial court had failed to record findings on a number of specific allegations of Ram Singh; of specific allegations of Ram Sing; for instance, the lease was executed surreptitiously without issue of agenda or proclamation. 3. I will take the second point first. The observation of the learned Additional Commissioner is that the learned Collector had not given findings on the specific pleas of Ram Singh and he had given an instance that no finding had been executed surreptitiously without a formal agenda and without previous proclamation. This criticism of the learned Additional Commissioner is correct because the learned Collector has not given any finding on this allegation, though it was one of the most material factors which could decide the regularity or irregularity of the patta executed by the Land Management Committee. This criticism of the learned Additional Commissioner is correct because the learned Collector has not given any finding on this allegation, though it was one of the most material factors which could decide the regularity or irregularity of the patta executed by the Land Management Committee. Thus, in not deciding this most important aspect of the case the learned Collector committee material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction and his order calls for interference on this court alone. 4. Now, the first point mentioned by the learned Additional Commissioner that the parties had not been given opportunity to adduce oral evidence and Ram Singh applicant had not been given change to cross-examine the witnesses of the opposite-party, is also correct. The general rule is that oral evidence of the parties will be taken according to Order XVII Rule 4, Code of Civil Procedure. However, Section 30, C.P.C., and Order XIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. lays down that the court may at any time, either on its own motion or on the application of any party, order any fact to be proved by affidavit'. Order XIX Rule 1 C.P.C. lays down that 'Any court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the court thinks reasonable. In this instance case, the parties had not applied that their evidence be taken by affidavit. The court also did not pass any order that the paries should give evidence by affidavits. As no such order was passed, the further requirement that such order should be passed for sufficient reason was also missing and the another requirement that the court will order that any particular fact of facts may be proved by affidavit is also wanting. Under Order XIX Rule 1, C.P.C., the court can order proof of certain fact or facts, but it cannot order evidence by affidavits regarding the whole case. In A.I.R. Commentary on Code of Civil Procedure 1977 Edn. Volume III, page 518 the learned authors and had observed; "Under Rule 1, the court can not direct that the whole case may be proved by affidavits. In A.I.R. Commentary on Code of Civil Procedure 1977 Edn. Volume III, page 518 the learned authors and had observed; "Under Rule 1, the court can not direct that the whole case may be proved by affidavits. It can only order, that particular fact or facts only may be proved by affidavit." The procedure adopted by the learned Collector suffers from material irregularity in so far as (i) he has not passed any order that the evidence of the parties will be taken on affidavits; (ii) of the parties themselves have not applied that their evidence be taken on affidavit; (iii) no sufficient reason has been shown to exist for passing any such order, and (iv) the whole case was going to be decided on the affidavits of the parties which could not be done because the court could order proof of only of a particular fact or facts by affidavit and it had to mention as to what those fact or facts were, which required to be proved by affidavits. Thus, the learned Collector acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction and on this ground also his order is liable to be interfered with. 5. Order XIX Rule 2, C.P.C. enables the court to allow evidence on affidavit, if the parties or either of the parties make an application to that effect. In the instant case, no such application had been given by any of the parties. Hence, Rule 2 of Order XIX, C.P.C., did not apply to the circumstances of the present case. 6. I agree with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner and allow the revision and set aside the order dated 21.9.1976 passed by the learned Collector and remand the case to him for decision according to law in the light of the observations made above.