JUDGMENT M.M. Gopal, Member - This is a revision against the order dated May 7, 1979 of the trial court by which Additional Commissioner by his order dated December 15, 1980 recommended for quashing the aforesaid order of the trial court. 2. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties. 3. The facts of the case are that one suit under Section 229-B/176 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was filed. The suit was decided on March 13, 1978 and an appeal was filed by Achchaibar, one of the defendants and the same was allowed on March 19, 1979. It so happened that during the pendency of the suit i.e. on December 31, 1977 one of the defendants Nankoo died. Hence the appellate court allowed the appeal and remanded the case with the direction that the legal representatives of the deceased Nankoo be substituted and then the case be decided in accordance with law. It will not be out of place to mention here that Nankoo did not contest the suit. Then on May 30, 1979 Chhedi and others plaintiffs filed an application for substituting the heirs of Nankoo. Nankoo one of the defendants filed an objection. The trial court allowed the substitution application on August 7, 1979. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated December 15, has recommended for quashing the aforesaid order of the trial court on the ground that the substitution application was filed after such a long delay and no reasoning has been given for condoning the delay or setting aside the automatic abatement. I am unable to agree with the reasoning given by the learned Additional Commissioner. When there is specific direction of the learned Additional Commissioner by his order dated March 19, 1979 that the substitution be done, the trial court has no other alternative except to do the same because that order of the learned Additional Commissioner has become final and the direction was binding on the trial court. Moreover, the deceased Nankoo was a non-contesting defendant. 5. I, therefore find no jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of it and I do not accept the reasoning given by the learned Additional Commissioner. The revision is therefore dismissed.