JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the judgment dated August 3, 1982 of the learned Additional Commissioner by which he rejected the revision and upheld the order of the trial court dated November 26, 1981 by which it rejected the application. 2. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the file. 3. The facts of the case are that a suit under Sections 229-B/209 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed by Ganesh Prasad against Sohan. During the pendency of the suit one witness Mewa Lal was produced by the defendant, Sohan but he was not cross examined by the plaintiff. It so happened that his examination in-chief was not taken to be correct in accordance with the procedure of law hence the order was given that the statement of Mewa Lal be taken. It will not be out of point to mention with a prayer here that the plaintiff has also filed an application to give an opportunity to cross examine the witness Mewa Lal. It so happened that on the subsequent dates the witness Mewa Lal did not appear and ultimately on November 17, 1981 the parties were present but the witness as mentioned in the order sheet Mewa Lal was not present hence the case proceeded without taking the statement of Mewa Lal. On that very day i.e. November 17, 1981 Mewa Lal filed an application that he was ready to give his statement and the same may be allowed but on that application the order put up on the date fixed was passed on November 17, 1981. Then on November 26, 1981 the application was rejected. The order is as follows:- "Rejected." 4. Thus there is no ground for rejecting the application. It also shows that on November 17, 1981 Mewa Lal witness was present. 5. Thus on the face of it, it appears that the party or witness whose statement court was to take was present and the witness was ready to give his statement. The order is as follows:- "Rejected." 4. Thus there is no ground for rejecting the application. It also shows that on November 17, 1981 Mewa Lal witness was present. 5. Thus on the face of it, it appears that the party or witness whose statement court was to take was present and the witness was ready to give his statement. Hence it was the duty of the court either to take the statement of that witness or reject his prayer for recording his statement on some grounds because it is a judicial order and it should be in accordance with the provisions of law and it should appear that the court has exercised its mind by passing that order but this was not done so. 6. Hence both the courts have committed an error apparent on the face of it and the learned Additional Commissioner has upheld the aforesaid order of the trial court on some other considerations. 7. I therefore allow the revision, set aside the order dated August 3, 1982 of the learned Commissioner and November 26, 1981 of the trial court and send back the file to the trial court to proceed with the case in accordance with law and on the basis of the observations made above. 8. The parties shall bear their own costs.