JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of Addl. Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly dated 5.6.1985 passed in a revision under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Class/Sub-Divisional Officer, Powayan, District Shahjahanpur, dated 19.11.1984. 2. The Gaon Sabha filed the suit on the ground that the name of the plaintiff is recorded over the disputed plot on the basis of forged entry, hence it should be declared that the Gaon Sabha is of owner of the disputed plot and if the revisionist is found in possession he should be ejected. The suit was filed under Sections 229/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The suit was contested by the revisionist that they are recorded bhumidhars of the suit plots and they are as such recorded during the consolidation operation. A preliminary issue No. 2 was decided whether the suit is barred by Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act? This issue was decided by the trial court that the issue shall be decided after the evidence. The revision was filed against the order which has been dismissed. Against 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as D.G.C. (R.) Perused the record. 4. The issue has not yet been decided. The trial court wants to decide all the issues after taking the evidence. In view of pleadings of the Gaon Sabha the issue can be decided only when the evidence is taken. 5. However, the State Government has not explained his whole pleading how the entry is forged, unless this pleading is disclosed the revisionist will be at a disadvantageous position to rebut the pleadings of the State Government. The Lekhpal was examined in this case. He has only stated that the disputed plot was recorded as forest and banjar land of Gaon Sabha in 1356 and 1359 Fasli. The lekhpal has filed the copy of C.H. Form 41. It shows that plot No. 543 area 1.82 was carved out from old plot No. 751 M. Area .19, 752 M. Area .49, 760 M. area .39, 761-M area .37 and 772 M. area .38. Total area comes to 1.82. The suit has been filed for .19 area of plot No. 543. It shows that plot No. 543 area 1.82 was carved out from old plot No. 751 M. Area .19, 752 M. Area .49, 760 M. area .39, 761-M area .37 and 772 M. area .38. Total area comes to 1.82. The suit has been filed for .19 area of plot No. 543. It means the State Government has no claim over the rest of the area. Khatauni extract 1355 and 1356 Fasli shows that plot No. 406 M. had an area of 13.80. The comparative table (fard mutabiquat) of 1356 Fasli shows that old plot No. 406/3 area .7 was named new plot No. 751 area .60. Since in 1356 and 1359 Fasli Khatauni the plot No. 406 is shown Minjumla number, it means there were main sub-division of those plot in the name of different tenure-holders. The C.H. Form 23 shows that the revisionist was recorded over plot No. 121 area .30, 437 area 1.00, 760 area .19, 761 area .13, 763 area .94, 763/3 area .30 total area 2.92. This was the original holding of the revisionist. For this original holding he was allotted plot No. 755 M. area .2, 759 area .20, 760 area .81, 761 M area .55, 762 M. area .28 total area 1.86, but this allotment was changed and plot Nos. 755 M area .2, 759 M. area .20, 760 M. area .78, 761 M. area .52, 762 M. area .36 total area 1.78 was taken out and plot No. 751 M. area .19, 752 area .49, 760 M area .36, 761 area 34, 762 area .5 total area .74 was allotted along with remaining area already allotted in the chak. The dispute has been raised regarding plot No. 751 M. area .19 shows that the old plot number the State Government has filed the copy of Khatauni after the record operation as to show what number was carved out from plot No. 406 area 13.80 as shown in Khatauni 1356 and 1359 Fasli. They have filed only .60 area of plot No. 406/3 from which plot No. 751 area .7 was carved out. The trial court has only to see as to who was recorded over plot No. 406/3 area .60 from which new plot No. 751 area .60 was carved out after record operation. They have filed only .60 area of plot No. 406/3 from which plot No. 751 area .7 was carved out. The trial court has only to see as to who was recorded over plot No. 406/3 area .60 from which new plot No. 751 area .60 was carved out after record operation. If the plot No. 751 is recorded in the name of any cultivator then there is no forged entry. Even if it is assumed that it was in the name of Gaon Sabha and there was a valid allotment has been shown in C.H. Form 23, C.H. Form 41 of the consolidation still then the Gaon Sabha has no claim. Whatever the area was allotted to the revisionist during the consolidation. It was allotted to the revisionist in lieu of his holding. It is surprising that State Government has not explained how the entry is forged. From the evidence whatever available at the record it indicate that the entry is in favour of the revisionist is genuine and valid. Even if the worst it is presumed that the Gaon Sabha's land was grasped by forged entry by somebody else and that area of the Gaon Sabha has been allotted to the revisionist in his chak then the suit itself is not maintainable unless the original tenure-holder is impleaded as party. With this direction that the trial court will decide the case expeditiously after examining the records of the consolidation. The trial court will decide the issue whether the suit is barred under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act or not? He will also decide all the issues together.