JUDGMENT D.S. Misra, Member - This is a revision filed by Jhagroo against the order dated February 3, 1979 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad rejecting the additional issues and for amendment. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 3. The facts giving rise to this revision are that Jhagroo filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the ground that he has acquired Adhivasi rights being recorded in 1356 Fasli and being in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli became Sirdar of in land in suit. He also claimed to be himself in adverse possession of the land in suit being in possession from the last twenty years he claimed that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. The suit was contested by Kanhaiya Singh on the ground that he is the Bhumidahr of the land in suit as he had obtained it one the basis of a sale deed executed by Smt. Sayeedan the guardian of Subhan Ali tenure-holders. The trial court framed necessary issues. The parties adduced oral and documentary evidence and after considering the same the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgement and decree of the trial court and during the pendency of the appeal he moved an application before the Additional Commissioner that the necessary issues were not framed by the trial court which may be framed and he also prayed that he be allowed to amend his plaint. This application was rejected by the learned Additional Commissioner. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 4. It was argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist had claimed his Sirdari rights in the land in suit of being recorded in 1356 Fasli and being in cultivatory possession in 1359 Fasli and also by remaining in possession for beyond the statutory period of limitation and the trial court ought to have framed specific issues on each point. The trial court did not frame these specific issues separately for which an application was moved before the appellate court and the lower appellate court acted illegally in rejecting this application and also rejecting his amendment application. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the trial court had frames necessary issues. The trial court did not frame these specific issues separately for which an application was moved before the appellate court and the lower appellate court acted illegally in rejecting this application and also rejecting his amendment application. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that the trial court had frames necessary issues. Issues No. 1 and 2 the trial court covered the entire pleas taken by the parties and therefore there was no sense in framing additional issues at the stage of appellate court or by allowing infructuous application for amendment inasmuch as all the pleas that were sought to be taken by means of amendment had already been incorporated in paras 6 and 7 of the plaint. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties. The question arises before me as to whether the lower courts have committed any jurisdictional error or illegality or any material irregularity by which the revisionist has been prejudiced. To my mind no such illegality or irregularity has been committed by the court below. The revisionist had filed the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act taking various pleas. The issue was framed regarding his title to the land in suit. He had led all possible evidence that he had within his power. The record speaks that the trail court considered all the evidence and thereafter came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-revisionist had no right to the land in suit and on that consideration he dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-revisionist. In these circumstances there was no necessity for framing issues regarding such fragment of plea of Sirdari rights. Similarly I find that the pleas which were sought to be taken by means of amendment had already been incorporated in the plaint which was covered within the issue No. 2 as to whether the contesting defendant was the Bhumidhar of the land in suit. The trial court considered this aspect as well with full attention and considering all these he came to the conclusion that the contesting defendant was the Bhumidar of the land in suit and there was no need for framing any additional issue on the point or for allowing any such point at the appellate stage. The trial court considered this aspect as well with full attention and considering all these he came to the conclusion that the contesting defendant was the Bhumidar of the land in suit and there was no need for framing any additional issue on the point or for allowing any such point at the appellate stage. This is well settled principle of law that whether the parties fully understood the nature of the case and when they were given due opportunity including evidence to support their case. Non-framing of any particular issue would not to have any fatal effect. The Board in its decision held it which has been reported in Ram Prasad v. Sundar and others 1977 R.D. 373. The same view was held by the Board in its decision reported in Har Bhajan v. Smt. Krishna and others 1977 R.D. 19 (Ref No. 327 of 1971). In also find that the same view was held by the Board in its decision reported in Ram Bhawan v. Jata Shanker Tewari 1970 R.D. 502 (Revision No. 1314-15 of 1964-65). Considering all these circumstances I find that the Additional Commissioner has rightly rejected the application of Jhagroo. 7. Revision is therefore without force and is hereby rejected. The file be sent back to the Court of Additional Commissioner for deciding the appeal on merits.