JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a second appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 17.6.1983 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.3.1980 passed by Asstt. Collector, Ist Class Bahraich in a suit under Secs. 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that though the suit had been decreed by the trial court but the learned Additional Commissioner came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by Sec. 34 (5) of U.P. Land Revenue Act but he did not reject the plaint and instead dismissed the appeal on merits. It was, therefore, argued that the order of the learned Addl. Commissioner is wrong and that his order must be quashed and the plaint deserves to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 sub-rule (D) of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that if this court also comes to the finding that the suit is barred by the above provision it should dismiss the appeal and reject the plaint. 5. In my opinion the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is correct. When the learned Additional Commissioner had come to the conclusion that the suit was barred by Sec. 34 (5) of Land Revenue Act he should not have gone further and should not have decided the appeal on merits and should have rejected the plaint outright. In such circumstances this appeal is allowed. The impugned decree and judgment of the learned Additional Commissioner are set aside and those by the trial court are also set aside and the plaint stands rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the C.P.C.