JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated 2-8-1978, the learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division Faizabad, has recommended that the order of the learned trial court dated 10-3-1978 be set aside and the case be remanded for impleading the LMC as a necessary party and for decision afresh. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. This bearing was confined to the question whether the case must be remanded or can be considered and decided here because it appears that the LMC was a party before the learned trial court and the recommendation being misconceived deserves to be rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that section 218 of the Land Revenue Act is the same as section 333-A of the UP ZA and LR Act and the ruling reported in 1967 RD 84 supports his contention that the power of the Commissioner and thereby the power of the Board u/Sec. 333-A of the Act are much wider than the powers u/Sec. 333 of the Act which corresponds to section 219 of the UP LR Act, He argued that the revisionist was entitled to take advantage of more liberal provision and, therefore, the case should be remanded to the Commissioner for further enquiry and a reference, if necessary The learned DGC (R) has argued that there was no need to further remand and further enquiry, that since the LMC was already a party in the trial court, there was no illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction and the reference and revision petition must be rejected. 4. No doubt, the distinction as regards sections 218 and 219 of the UP LR Act is there but it is doubtful if this ruling can be wholly applied to sections 333 and 333-A of UP ZA and LR Act. Since the ruling cited, there have been legislative changes u/Secs. 218 and 219 of the LR Act. Precisely, u/Sec. 218 now only legality of the proceedings can be examined. Further, Section 218 did not have any reference of the scope of section 219 or in other words, the cases covered by section 218 were not limited by the scope of section 219 while on the UP ZA and LR Act, the cases coming within the purview of section 333-A must be out of these cases which are covered by section 333. This is clear from the words `any' occurring alone in section 218 in the third line after the words `examine the record' and u/Sec. 333-A the words `examine the record of any suit or proceeding referred to u/Sec. 333. This makes it clear that even though there is want of propriety of any type in a suit or proceeding, unless there is mistake in the exercise of jurisdiction precisely defined u/Sec. 333 and unless on the basis the case is covered within the scope of section 333, no examination of the record is possible u/Sec. 333-A. In other words, if the Bord within its powers u/Sec. 33 i has jurisdiction to look into a case, only then a reference u/Sec. 333-A by the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner after enquiry into the legality or propriety of any order can be possible. This precondition of the case coming within the scope of section 333 has to be satisfied first. 5. The preliminary point is accordingly decided and the case is now fixed for hearing within the scope of section 333 after which the parties can argue whether order, if any, has to be passed u/Sec. 333-A or section 333 of the UP ZA and LR Act.