JUDGMENT R.S. Verma, Member. - This second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated August 17, 1981 passed by Sri N.S. Mathur, learned Additional Commissioner. He allowed the appeal of Smt. Chandrawati defendant-Appellant. 2. Dulare had filed a suit against Chandrawati under section 209 Z.A. and L.R. Act on the ground that he was tenant of the land in suit and that he had been held as such by the consolidation courts. He further alleged that the consolidation courts ordered that the name of defendant 1 to 3 shall be recorded in class 9 is the Khatauni. He alleged that in July 1967 the defendant forcibly occupied the land in suit. He also mentioned that the disputed plots were out of consolidation scheme and hence the consolidation authorities have no right to deliver the possession to the plaintiff; The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff and ordered that the defendants shall be ejected. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner had decided the appeal against the plaintiff on the sole ground that at the time of filing of suit the village was still under consolidation scheme and hence the suit was barred by Section 49 of the C.H. Act. The learned Additional Commissioner had relied on 1970 R.D. 240 in which a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had held that no suit under Section 209 Z.A. and L.R. Act could be field during the continuation of consolidation scheme. In the court of the learned Additional Commissioner a copy of High Court's order given in writ petition No. 641 of 1971, Girja Singh v. Board of Revenue, had been filed but the learned Additional Commissioner did not even refer to it. Now I have seen that judgment of the learned High Court. In that case consolidation authorities had decided the title on the parties in respect of certain plot but denotification was done some times after that and before denotification the person who had been declared to be tenant during consolidation proceeding had filed a suit under Section 209 U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The suit of that title holder was thrown out on the ground that it was filed before the denotification under section 52 of the C.H. Act, and hence it was barred by Section 49 C.H. Act. The suit of that title holder was thrown out on the ground that it was filed before the denotification under section 52 of the C.H. Act, and hence it was barred by Section 49 C.H. Act. The learned High Court held that if the suit was not maintainable at the date of instituting because of Section 49 C.H. Act, There was no bar to the relief being granted by the trial court on some later date when consolidation scheme itself had come to an end. The learned High Court held that if at the time of the institution of the suit the bar of section 49 C.H. Act operated, and if before the decree the bar of 49 is removed by virtue of denotification under Section 52 of the C.H. Act it would be unjust to throw out the tenant's case because the tenant would be left with virtually no remedy, or would have to under take another protracted litigation de novo and the courts would be allowing a trespasser to continue merrily in possession for an indefinite length of time even after he has been found by the consolidation authorities and also by the revenue court to be without any title. This ruling of the learned High Court applied with full force to the facts of this case. 4. Here in this case the suit was filed on July 1, 1968 when there was a ruling of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court Abdul Wahid Khan v. D.D.C., 1968 R.D. 57, which had held that Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act was not a bar to a suit under Section 209 Z.A. and L.R. Act. That ruling was operative when this present suit was filled and because of that ruling of the High court the plaintiff was bound to file this suit of ejectment if he wanted to save his property from a trespasser. At that time the village was under consolidation scheme. It has come under evidence that the consolidation operation was closed in the year 1972. The trial court decided the suit on May 31, 1973, that is after denotification under section 52 of the C.H. Act had been made. At that time there was no bar of Section 49 of the C.H. Act against the plaintiff. It has come under evidence that the consolidation operation was closed in the year 1972. The trial court decided the suit on May 31, 1973, that is after denotification under section 52 of the C.H. Act had been made. At that time there was no bar of Section 49 of the C.H. Act against the plaintiff. If Section 49 C.H. Act was a bar it was against the defendant who had been adjudged as a trespasser during consolidation proceedings. The plaintiff's suit was rightly decreed by the learned trial court. It is also important to note here that the plaintiff examined several witnesses in support of his case but the defendant dared not cross examining the witnesses Dulare and Jang Bahadur. The defendant did not examine a single witness in support of his case. It is apparent that the defendant is a mere trespasser and he has absolutely no case regarding the land in suit. He was rightly ordered to be ejected from the plots in dispute. 5. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional Commissioner is not according to law. He completely ignored the judgment of the learned High Court which had been file in his court itself and which was fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case also. There was no defect in the suit of the plaintiff. It had been validly filed in the year 1968 when the law applicable, because of Full Bench decision of the High Court, was that suit under Section 209 could lie even during continuance of consolidation scheme. There was no inherent defect in filling the suit nor was no inherent lack of jurisdiction of the court in admitting the suit. It has come in evidence that when the judgment and decree of the trial court was passed the land in suit was no under consolidation scheme. 6. On the above ground I allow this second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Commissioner and maintain the judgment and decree of the learned trial court.