JUDGMENT N. Lal, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur in Appeal No. 1 of 1988 of district Etawah treating as revision preferred against the order dated 2-12-1988 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Bidbuna of district Etawah in suit no. 95 of 1977 of district Etawah under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, to be called the "Act" hereinafter. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that a suit under section 229-B of the Act was brought by the revisionist Shyam Swaroop son of Mauji Lal resident of village Nagla Hari Ram Pargana and Tehsil Bidhuna district Etawah against the State and two others claiming bhumidhari rights over the land in suit described at the foot of the plaint situated in the same village as his real son of the deceased recorded tenure holder Mauji Lal by inheritance. The suit was decreed ex parte first on 23-4-1977 against the defendants and on the restoration application dated 23-4-1977 i.e. the same day the ex parte judgment and decree was set aside and the suit war restored on 18-10-1977 by the trial court but it was dismissed in default on 9-12-1977 and was restored again on 21-2-1978 and this restoration was disputed and opposed by the other party as a result of which the dispute came up to the Board in revision which was allowed on 28-11-1980 with the directions that the restoration application shall be disposed of after giving due notice to the other party, when the record was received back by the trial court, on the application moved by the defendant the learned trial court passed the impugned order dated 2-12-1988 where by he directed to restore the position in the revenue records back to the stage prior to 23-4-1977 on the ground that the order dated 23-4-1977 had already been set aside. The plaintiff, therefore came before the Commissioner in the present revision in which the learned Addl. Commissioner has made this reference with the recommendations for allowing the revision and for setting aside the impugned order dated 2-12-1988. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The plaintiff, therefore came before the Commissioner in the present revision in which the learned Addl. Commissioner has made this reference with the recommendations for allowing the revision and for setting aside the impugned order dated 2-12-1988. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist tracing out the brief history of the case has contended that the original recorded tenure holder was Mauji Lal and on his death revisionist Shyam Swaroop claimed the property left behind by the deceased and was successful in getting the mutation in his name done with regard to the property of another village Chakmat Bandha. Pargana and Tehsil Bidhuna district Etawah in spite of the contest put by Sukhbasi Lal (now deceased) on the grounds that deceased Mauji Lal had executed a will deed in favour of the opposite-party Krishna Prasad allegedly the adopted son of deceased Sukhbasi Lal but since this concocted story was not believed by the mutation courts the opposite-party lost his claim on that basis. The learned counsel for the revisionist has disclosed that the case of plaintiff is that he is the real son of deceased Mauji Lal and it is immaterial as to who was his mother. Advancing the arguments on merits of the case, the learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that para 39 of the Revenue Court Manual provides for the issue of Parwana only when any judgment and decree is passed but since no order in favour of the opposite-party Krishna Prasad has been passed by any court, there is no sense in reverting the position back in the revenue records by the impugned order of the trial court particularly when the person who was recorded previously and to whose favour the position is being reverted back in the revenue records is a dead person and as a matter of rule also no entries can be made in the name of dead persons which is against the interest of State too because no land revenue can be realised in such a case from a dead person. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite-party has argued that the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court was set aside and the suit was then dismissed in default, the order for restoration of which has been set aside by the Board and the matter regarding the restoration of order dated 9-12-1977 is still pending consideration and is to be disposed of by the learned trial court in accordance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Board The contentions of the learned counsel for the opposite party therefore, are that sin-e the decree on the basis of which the name of plaintiff was brought in revenue records in place of deceased Mauji Lal has already been set aside and there is no justification nor any ground for allowing the name of the plaintiff to continue in revenue records on that basis and therefore the learned trial court has passed a just and correct order in the facts and circumstances of the case for restoring status quo as it existed prior to the passing of ex parte decree in favour of the plaintiff The learned counsel for the opposite party has also argued that since no case or proceedings has been decided the present revision is not maintainable. 6. The learned counsel for the revisionist, in reply has laid stress on the point that under paras 39/40 of the Revenue Court Manual B.R. Form 25 was issued in execution of the ex parte decree and further B.R. Form can now be issued only after the decision of the case on merits and therefore the learned Sub Divisional Officer in passing the impugned order has exceeded the jurisdiction conferred on him and the order is totally perverse, illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and I totally agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist. 7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and I totally agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist. It is correct that the order for dismissing the suit in default was set aside by the learned trial court and the matter has been reverted back under the orders of this court but it is undoubtedly clear that the matter relating to restoration of the order dated 9-12-1977 is still under consideration of the trial court and the parties are contesting and were present before the court hence the learned Sub-Divisional Officer ought to have decided the matter of restoration of order dated 9-12-1977 first in compliance of the directions issued by this court instead of taking any other step in the matter. The contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist that no orders for making entries in the names of dead persons can be justified in any provision of law are absolutely correct and I totally agree with these contentions. As a matter of fact the entries in the name of a dead person cannot be provided in any provision of law, particularly after such an entry has been expunged from the record and the name of the person entered in place of deceased must continue till the decision of the case on merits because in that way the interest of the State shall be safe and land revenue can be realised from the person whose name is recorded and if after the decision on merits the person recorded looses the case then only his name shall be expunged and claim of the other party can be brought on record. I also agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist that B.R. Form issued under the provisions of Revenue Court Manual can only be issued only when an order or decree is passed in favour of either of the parties and in the present case although the ex parte decree in favour of revisionist-plaintiff was set aside with a view to afford an opportunity to the defendant to have their say also, no new order or decree has been passed in favour of other party so as to justify issuing of B.R. Form under para 39/40 of the Revenue Court Manual and the learned trial court has acted beyond jurisdiction and his order is legally vitiated. No detailed discussions on merits of the case are required at this stage. 8. In view of the observations made above, the reference and recommendations are accepted, revision is allowed and the order dated 2-12-1988 passed by the learned trial court is set aside with the directions to the trial court for deciding the matter relating to the restoration of order dated 9-12-1977 at the earliest on priority and then to decide the case on merits.