JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a plaintiffs' Second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 3-12-1983 allowing the appeal of the defendant against the judgment and decree of the Assistant Collector 1st Class, Faizabad dated 13-7-1979 decreeing the plaintiffs' suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Plaintiff-appellants brought a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 which was decreed by the trial court. 3. Defendant went up in appeal before the commissioner who held that the suit was defective for want of the service of proper notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on the State and under Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act on the Gaon Sabha and dismissed the suit. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is averment in the plaint in para 9 that notices have been sent to the collector and the Gaon Sabha prior to two months before the filing of the suit and the registration receipts have been filed before the additional Commissioner but the latter ignored them and did not take these into consideration and allowed the appeal without assessing the value of those receipts. It was further argued that other receipts fully proved that the notices had been sent to the Collector and Gaon Sabha in compliance of provision of Section 80 C.P.C. and Section 106 of Panchayat Raj Act had been lawfully carried out, therefore, the suit cannot be dismissed on this technical ground. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the question of filing the receipt in the court of the Additional Commissioner was not taken up in the grounds in the memo of appeal in the court and so these receipts cannot be considered by this court because they were never admitted by the lower appellate court. 7. I am afraid the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent has no force because it was the Additional Commissioner to have passed a proper order on the application for filing the documents and if he had not done do so the party filing the same could not be permitted for this default of the Additional Commissioner. 7. I am afraid the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent has no force because it was the Additional Commissioner to have passed a proper order on the application for filing the documents and if he had not done do so the party filing the same could not be permitted for this default of the Additional Commissioner. Further no issue was framed by the trial court in respect of service of notices under Section 80, C.P.C. and Section 106 of U.P. Panchayat Raj Act hence even if the plea was taken by Sate to that effect it was not of much consequence and it would be deemed that such plea was waived. The Plea of service of notice on the State and Gaon Sabha was not open to any other third party The State and Gaon Sabha did not produce any evidence before the trial court nor did they contest the appeal before the Additional Commissioner, hence the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit on technical ground was unwarranted and was not a proper exercise of jurisdiction. He should have decided the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties. His judgment and decree cannot be upheld and must be quashed. 8. The result is that this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Additional Commissioner are set aside and the appeal is remanded back to him with the direction that he should decide the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties.