JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated April 28, 1983 through which the revision filed by the defendant Dessa was summarily rejected. 2. The facts of this case in brief are that on the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed as many an 10 issued out of which issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 8 were ordered to be decided first as they were preliminary issues. After hearing both the parties the trial court decided all these 4 issues in favours of the plaintiff against the defendant. Its order was challenged in revision which was summarily rejected on the ground that the questions raised in revision should be examined at the stage of appeal, if filed, by any of the parties against the final judgment, hence no revision lays against the order of the trial court. This revision arises against the same order. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. Issue No. 3 relates to the suit being barred by Section 80 of the C.P.C. The trial court has held that the plaintiffs had sent a notice under Section 80 to the State Government earlier and had filed the suit also which was withdrawn by them with permission to file a fresh suit, hence if the filed this suit without giving any notice to the State they did not commit any illegality and that the suit was not barred by Section 80, C.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the observation made by the trial court is wrong because a fresh notice was required under Section 80, C.P.C. before the institution of the present suit. 6. I do not agree with this argument firstly because the State in its written statement did not raise this plea and secondly there was no defect in the suit if no fresh notice had been given because the notice sent earlier before the institution of the suit which was withdrawn was sufficient for the purpose of this suit also and no fresh notice was required under law. Moreover when the State had not take the plea of the suit being barred by Section 80, C.P.C. no other party can raise this objection. Moreover when the State had not take the plea of the suit being barred by Section 80, C.P.C. no other party can raise this objection. In such circumstances the finding recorded by the trial court is absolutely correct and the suit cannot be held to be barred by Section 80 C.P. Code. 7. As regards issue No. 5 about the suit being barred for being part of holdings I understand that the finding recorded by the trail court is correct. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that besides the disputed land there are some other plots also in the Khata and the suit should have been brought for all the plots. I do not think that this argument is at all tenable. A holding does to mean a Khata but merely a tenancy created in each agreement, hence for that purpose every individual plot is a distinct holding and the suit can be brought for partition also for any or all the plots of a khata. In the instant case the plaintiff claimed their title only on the disputed plots and the other plots included in the Khata are not involved in the dispute, hence there was no reason for the plaintiffs to have included those plots in the plaint. They were justified in mentioning only those plots over which they claimed title and, therefore, they could claim partition also in the same plots. In these circumstances the suit cannot be held to be bad for being for part of holding. This issue has also been rightly decided in favour of the plaintiffs. 8. As regards issue Nos. 4 and 8 the trial court has held that no law was shown to it by the defendant and, therefore, they were rightly decided in favour of the plaintiffs. I do not find any reason of differ with the opinion of the trial court on those issues. 9. In view of the above discussion I come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court on all the preliminary issued referred to above are perfectly justified and there is no reason to interfere in the same. I do not find any reason of differ with the opinion of the trial court on those issues. 9. In view of the above discussion I come to the conclusion that the findings recorded by the trial court on all the preliminary issued referred to above are perfectly justified and there is no reason to interfere in the same. I also agree with the observation made by the leaned Additional Commissioner that in case an appeal is preferred arguments shall be open for the parties in respect of all the above issues also after the case is finally disputed of hence there is no reason at this stage to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court. 10. This revision is, therefore, without any force and is dismissed. Let the record be sent back to the trial court to dispose it to expeditiously according to law.