JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member- This second appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 5-6-75. The learned Additional Commissioner remanded the case to be tried again by the trial court. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Nathu Singh and Ziledar Singh filed a suit under Section 229-B of U. P. Act I of 1951 alleging that they had taken the land on lease from the then Zamindar and were in continuous possession of the land in suit ; that the order of A.C.C. dated 21-11-60 was final in this matter but that order was not given effect to. The Collector filed his written statement alleging that the plaintiffs were not sirdars of the land in suit and that the present suit was barred under Section 49 of the C.H. Act. The trial court decreed the suit. An appeal was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner who set aside the order and remanded the case for retrial by the trial court, holding that the statements of witnesses were neither written by the Presiding Officer nor the Presiding Officer had given his certificate. The learned Additional Commissioner has directed the trial court to re-write evidence and thereafter decide the case in accordance with law. The learned Additional Commissioner has placed reliance on Order XVIII, Rules 4 and 5 and Page 59 of the Revenue Court Manual. 3. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner was erroneous and it was not necessary to give a certificate by the Presiding Officer on the statements of witnesses. 5. Para 59 of the Revenue Court Manual provides that provisions of rules 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 of Order XVIII C.P.C. shall apply to all proceedings of judicial nature under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that under Rules 4 and 5 of Order XVIII of Code of Civil Procedure the verification by the Presiding Officer was not necessary. Rule 5 of Order 18 C.P.C. has been substituted by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. The amended section has come into force from 1-2-77. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that under Rules 4 and 5 of Order XVIII of Code of Civil Procedure the verification by the Presiding Officer was not necessary. Rule 5 of Order 18 C.P.C. has been substituted by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976. The amended section has come into force from 1-2-77. In the instant case, the evidence of the witnesses were taken prior to 1-2-77 and hence the Provisions contained in rule 5 of Order XVIII C.P.C. were not applicable. Rule 5 of Order 18 C.P.C. prior to its amendment by Amendment Act 104 of 1976, read as follows : "Rule 5. How evidence shall be taken in appealable cases : In cases in which an appeal is allowed the evidence of each witness shall be taken down in writing, in the language of the court, by or in the presence and under the personal direction and superintendence of the Judge, not ordinarily in the form of question and answer but in that of a narrative and, when completed shall be read over in the presence of the Judge and of the witness and the Judge, shall, if necessary, correct the same, and shall sign it". 7. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a judgment of the Board of Revenue reported in 1976 A.W.C.p. 132 (Division Bench), wherein it has been held that these rules were not mandatory and were purely procedural in nature. In the instant case, the statements of the witnesses were taken in the presence of the Presiding Officer and on his direction and the spirit of the provisions of unamended rule 5 of Order XVIII of the Code of Civil Procedure were complied with. I, therefore, hold that the view taken the learned Additional Commissioner is erroneous in law and consequently his order dated 5-6-75 is liable to be set aside. 8. I, accordingly allow this appeal set aside the order dated 5-6-75 and remand the case to the learned Additional Commissioner to decide it on merits in accordance with law.