JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This revision & petition is directed against the order dated 12.11.87 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi, dismissing the appeal No. 75/23 of 1985-86 thereby confirming the order and decree dated 23.6.84 passed by the Asstt. Collector Banda decreeing the suit No. X 1/2 of 1984. 2. The facts of the case are that Prithviraj Singh s/o Bhaiya Lal brought a suit in respect of plot No. 36/1 area 0.06 u/s 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on 13.2.84 against Ram Asrey Singh, Nagar Palika Banda, Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. with the prayer to declare him hereditary tenant of the land in dispute and to expunge the name of the defendant No. 1 Ram Asrey Singh from the revenue records. The plaintiff's case is that the land in dispute situate in village Larka Purwa is within the Municipal limits of Banda and is cultivable. The plaintiff had been in continuous possession over the land in dispute and thus perfected his rights as hereditary tenant. The defendant No. 1 has never been in possession and his rights, if any, has already extinguished. The defendant Ram Asrey Singh admitted the claim of the plaintiff. No objection was raised by tHe Gaon Sabha and the State. The learned trial court, therefore, decreed the suit on 23.6.84. An appeal against the decree and the judgment was preferred by Sheikh Anwaruzzama before the Divisional Commissioner claiming himself to be the owner of the disputed land. The learned Additional Commissioner did not condone the delay in filing the appeal and dismissed it as time-barred. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents despite due notice. Sri Hari Shanker, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that while entertaining a suit, the trial court has first of all to satisfy itself whether the suit is properly constituted and while passing a decree whether it be ex parte, by consent or by compromise, the court has a duty cast upon it to scrutinise the evidence and circumstances which will support the claim of the plaintiff to sustain a decree and above all that a fraud is not being perpetuated upon it. His second submission is that the learned Additional Commissioner instead of entangling himself in the technicalities should have treated the appeal as a revision since it was an appeal filed by an individual not a party to the suit or decree but whose interest were being badly jeopardised by the collusive suit and a fradulent decree obtained in the case. In the instant case, the learned counsel has pointed out that if the suit was filed u/s 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, the Zamindar must have been impleaded as a party. Reliance has been placed on 1979 RD 193 and 1952 RD 249. His last submission is that benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Ought to have been extended in the circumstances of the case and the validity of the trial court's decree should have been looked into. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the record. I find sufficient force in the contention made before me. The suit was filed u/s 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. The learned Assistant Collector 1st Class has not verified which of the Act was in force when the suit was filed before him. In case the suit was filed under the U.P. Tenancy Act, it was imperative for the plaintiff to implead the Zamindar as a necessary party. The learned trial court has illegally decreed the suit without verifying the validity of the claim and without seeing whether the claim of the plaintiff was legally proved. Even an ex parte decree cannot be given when the plaintiff fails to prove his case. The learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation. He should have been discreat in giving the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and should have examined the case on merits. 5. In the result, this revision petition succeeds and is consequently allowed. The orders of the courts below are set aside. The plaintiff is, however, not precluded from bringing a suit in accordance with law.