JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.1.84 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, know. 2. The facts of the case are that the opposite party Bansidhar filed six suits in the trial court. The suits were consolidated subsequently. The defendant Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, revisionist in the present case, raised preliminary objection that the revenue court had no jurisdiction to try the suits because the land in dispute is abadi. A vakil commissioner was appointed by the trial court to make on the spot enquiry and report. Sri Madhukar Dwivedi, the learned Assistant Collector 1st Class, Rai Bareily passed the order holding that he was competent to try the suit. Aggrieved by this order, Sadhan Sahkari Samiti carried a revision before the Divisional Commissioner. The learned. Additional Commissioner dismissed the revision holding that so long no declaration u/s 143 of the Act is sought, the revenue court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The present revision has been filed against this very order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri K.K. Lal, learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that no issue as required u/s 331-A of the Act has been framed and no findings on the nature of the land has been given. Sri S.D. Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party has contended that a declaration u/s 143 of the Act is mandatory and that the rules laid down under Rule 135 have not been followed. He has also pointed out that out of six suits, ex parte orders were passed in four suits. The ex parte order was assess in suit No. 5 against Gokaran, Purabi and Mahadeo in suit No. 6 against Bipat in suit No. 7 against Munni, in suit No. 8 against Ram Swarup. His contention is that since no appeal or revision have been preferred by these persons against the ex parte order, they have no say in the present revision. In reply, the learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that they cannot be prevented from challenging the judgment. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the records. The procedure adopted by the learned trial court and mechanically approved by the learned Additional Commissioner is pulpably wrong and against law. In reply, the learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that they cannot be prevented from challenging the judgment. 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced before me and have also perused the records. The procedure adopted by the learned trial court and mechanically approved by the learned Additional Commissioner is pulpably wrong and against law. Section 331-A of the Act provides that - " (1) If in any suit relating to land held by a bhumidhar, instituted in any court, the question arises or is raised whether the land in question is or is not used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming, and a declaration has not been made in respect of such land under Section 143 or 144, the court shall frame an issue on the question and send the record to the Assistant Collector incharge of the sub-division for the decision of that issue only: Provided that where the suit has been instituted in the court of Asstt. Collector in charge of the Sub-division it shall proceed to decide the question in accordance with the provisions of Section 143 or 144, as the case may be. (2) The Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-division after re-framing the issue, if a necessary, shall proceed to decide such issue in the manner laid down for the making of a declaration under Section 143 or 144, as the case may be and return the record together with is finding thereon to the court which referred the issue. (3) The court shall then proceed to decide the suit accepting the finding of the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-division on the issue referred to it. (4) The finding of the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-division on the issue referred to it shall, for the purpose of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the court which referred the issue." 5. (4) The finding of the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-division on the issue referred to it shall, for the purpose of appeal, be deemed to be part of the finding of the court which referred the issue." 5. Section 331-A of the Act contemplates that when a question arises or raised whether the land in question is or is not used for purposes connected with agriculture, horticulture, or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming and a declaration has not been made in respect of such land u/s 143 or 144, the court shall frame an issue on the question and send the records to the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Subdivision for the decision of that issue only. No such issue has been framed in this case though the revisionist had made objection that the land was abadi. Instead of framing an issue as required under law, the learned trial court chose to appoint a vakil-commissioner in contravention of the provisions laid down under Rule 135 which requires the Assistant Collector Incharge of the Sub-division to cause an enquiry being made through the Tehsildar or any other officer not below the rank of S.K. for the purpose of satisfying himself that the bhumidhar holding or a part thereof is really being used for a purpose not connected with agriculture, horticulture or animal husbandry which includes pisciculture and poultry farming. 6. The orders passed by the courts below are, therefore, patently illegal and deserve to be quashed. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the orders or both the courts below are quashed and the case is remanded back to the trial court for deciding the issue whether the land is being used for agricultural purposes or an abadi. The decision shall be taken in the light of the observations made above. 7. Before parting with this case, I would like to add that the learned counsel for the revisionist has made a written request to direct the courts below to make a search of the sealed envelop containing the following documents: 1. Original Ikrarnama by Bansidhar in favour of Shyam Lal, 2. Original sale deed by Shyam Lal in favour of Kaushal Kishore, 3. Original sale deed by Kaushal Kishore in favour of Shyam Kishore, President and Badri Prasad, treasurer and Shitla Prasad Patel, 4. Original receipt of Rs. Original Ikrarnama by Bansidhar in favour of Shyam Lal, 2. Original sale deed by Shyam Lal in favour of Kaushal Kishore, 3. Original sale deed by Kaushal Kishore in favour of Shyam Kishore, President and Badri Prasad, treasurer and Shitla Prasad Patel, 4. Original receipt of Rs. 600/- in respect to plot No. 1099-A and 1099-B by Bansidhar in favour of Shyam Lal, 5. Original receipt for permission to sell by Bansidhar in favour of Shyam Lal, 6. Original receipt for Rs. 500/- for selling the land No. 1099-A and 1099-B by Bansidhar in favour of Shyam Lal, 7. Original receipt for Rs. 100/- by Bansidhar in favour of Shyam Lal, 8. Original receipt for Rs. 80/- by Bansidhar in favour of Shyam Lal, 9. Original receipt for Rs. 200/- by Bansidhar in favour of Shyam Lal, 10. Original receipt for Rs. 2600/- in respect of sale by Kaushal Kishore in favour of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Bachharawan, 11. Original register of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Bachharawan page No. 15 dated 26.11.76 and page No. 17 and 18 dated 10.12.67 in respect of plot Nos. 1099-A and 1099-B. The register contained total page Nos. from 1 to 86. 8. The sealed envelop was enclosed with the memo of the revision before the Addl. Commissioner. After the revision was disposed off, the court below sent the file to the trial court. When the records were summoned by this court, there is no mention of the sealed envelop in the index. This shows that probably the sealed envelop was misplaced or lost in the court of the Additional Commissioner or the trial court. The trial court is directed to take the matter seriously and search the sealed envelop and make available the documents to the revisionist.