JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated June 1, 1971, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the revision petition against the trial court's order dated October 23, 1970, rejecting the application of Smt. Nagaula to implead her as legal representative of the sole plaintiff Ram Kishan, be rejected. The learned Additional Commissioner has also submitted the application of Smt. Nagaula dated June 1, 1971 for permission to file two extract Khataunis and a copy of the decree under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, which he stated in his order that he had no power to receive. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned trial court, as the learned counsel for the revisionist argued, had confused between the legal representative and heir. He decided only on the basis of Mst. Nagaula not being heir under Section 171 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act but left the question of appointment or impleadment of legal representative undecided. Mst. Nagaula had pleaded on two points, that she is the brother's daughter and that she had already been accepted as co-tenant with Ram Kishun on his share and omission of her name was only a mistake. In any case, not impleading her as legal representative when there was no other plaintiff than Ram Kishun, virtually amounts to dismissal of the suit, as well as failing to exercise jurisdiction vested in the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that considering the claim of the applicant, the trial court on consideration of provisions of Section 175 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act should have allowed impleadment as legal representative. The learned counsel for the opposite party has nothing more to say than that Shri Kishan and Sukhdeo defendants were recorded Sirdars of the land in dispute in 1372F. This, however, does not change the position. Impleadment as legal representative does not amount to a finding in favour of the person that he is the heir or successor otherwise, it is only a necessary formality to he completed before the suit can proceed. 4. As regards the Additional Commissioner having no powers to entertain additional evidence, the provision exists in Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. but the discretion vested with that court. 4. As regards the Additional Commissioner having no powers to entertain additional evidence, the provision exists in Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. but the discretion vested with that court. If the circumstances appearing now, relating to the claim of co-tenancy with Ram Kishun, the additional evidence filed is admitted now under Rule 27(1)(b) of Order XLI. 5. Even the prima facie case, as discussed above, calls for impleadment of the revisionist as legal representative. Therefore, the reference is rejected and the revision petition is allowed, the order of the learned trial court dated October 23, 1970 is set aside and the ease is remanded to the learned trial court to proceed after impleading Mst. Nagaula as legal representative in place of Ram Kishun plaintiff. 6. There is no bar to framing any additional issue or issues as become necessary and to taking evidence of parties on these issues as well, before deciding the case. The record of the lower courts be sent back without delay.