JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 3-2-1988 passed in revision No. 33 of 1986-87 arising out of an interlocutory order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mant, district Mathura passed in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 on 15-7-1987. 2. During the pendency of the proceeding Pappu defendant died in the trial court. His substitution application was filed on 18-7-1986 the revisionist appeared on 5-1-1987 and filed objection that they should be allowed to pairvi the case and their written statement should be accepted. They also pleaded that Pappu was already dead. The trial court set aside the ex-parte order against them on 27-3-1987 and allowed the substitution application of Dharamvir which was filed on 18-7-1986. August that revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner who has dismissed that revision then this revision under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 had been filed in this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one is present from the side of the opposite-parties. Perused the record. 4. When the application for the substitution was given even revisionists were not present in the court, therefore, the substitution application was already given by the plaintiff. It was the negligence of the court that the application was not allowed, therefore, when trial court has allowed that application it has committed no illegality. The finding recorded by the trial court is in accordance with law and fact. Hence there is no force in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed.