JUDGMENT Nathoo Lal, Member - This is a reference made by Sri S.P. Singh Solanki. The Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in revision no. 180 of 85-86 in a case under section 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act Smt. Champadevi v. Mihi Lal and others arising out of the orders passed by the Additional S.D.O./Assistant Collector, First Class, Aligarh Sri S.D. Khan. 2. Briefly speaking the facts of the case are that a suit under section 229-B of the UP ZA and LR Act was brought before the trial court by opposite party Mihi Lal against revisionist Smt. Champadevi which was instituted as suit no. 6 in that court Mihi Lal v. Smt. Champadevi. During the trial of the suit the defendant-revisionist Smt. Champadevi moved an application before the trial court on 28-6-1985 pressing therein for the decision on issue no. 3 framed by the court as a preliminary issue before proceeding further with the trial. This application was rejected by the trial court leading to the present revision in the court of the Commissioner challenging the order of rejection and the learned Additional Commissioner has made a reference under his Judgment and order dated 3-7-1986 with the recommendations that this revision may be allowed and the order passed by the trial court on 24-7-1985 be set aside remanding the case to the trial court with the directions that issue no. 3 be decided first as preliminary issue after taking evidence of the parties. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the parties have very briefly argued their points far and against the recommendations of the learned court below. The only point at issue before me is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the trial court was required to decide issue no. 3 relating to the bar of section 34 (5) of the Land Revenue Act as a preliminary issue or the view taken by the learned trial court to postpone the decision on this issue for giving the same along with the decision on rest of the issues at the final stage, was a correct view. 3 relating to the bar of section 34 (5) of the Land Revenue Act as a preliminary issue or the view taken by the learned trial court to postpone the decision on this issue for giving the same along with the decision on rest of the issues at the final stage, was a correct view. It is an admitted position that legal bar for the suit is a technical matter and it is also the settled law on the point that the suit should not be dismissed merely on legal and technical grounds to the extent possible and utmost attempt should be made to decide the matters on merits affecting the rights and title of the parties and to dispose them of keeping in view always the aim to impart substantial justice. Although the bar of Section 34 (5) of Land Revenue Act may render the suit liable to be dismissed which is a matter of evidence, it is not necessary that such technical and legal points should be made the sole basis for deciding the suits of title at the preliminary stage. 5. In my opinion therefore the trial court has committed no errors in exercise of his jurisdiction while rejecting the request of the revisionist for deciding the issue as a preliminary one nor any illegality or irregularity has been committed by that court because he has not opened his mind on the point. It is also clear from the records that the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed and the defendant was to enter into his evidence to finalise the trial of the suit which was not a matter of long way to go rather than this very long period wasted into the litigation up to the Board. 6. In view of the observations made above, I do not find sufficient grounds to agree with the recommendations of the learned Additional Commissioner and to accept the reference. The revision is accordingly dismissed with the observations that the trial of the suit shall be finalised expeditiously and issue no. 3 will be decided along with other issues by the trial court.