JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These two revisions has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951 against the order of Additional Commissioner. Kumaun Division, Nainital dated 18-2-1991 passed in revision under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of sub-Divisional Officer, Kashipur, district Nainital dated 18-7-90, passed in a suit under Section 229-BB of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. In the trial court two suits were filed against Smt. Prakashwati, Gaon Sabha and Sate under Section 229-BB of U.P. Act No. 1 f 1951 which was decided ex-parte. Smt. Prakashwati had filed restoration application. During the proceeding of restoration application were filed by the revisionist that Smt. Prakashwati is aged about 70 years of age and had suffered a heart attack. She is living at Delhi. Her statement should be recorded on Commission. The trial court by its order in dispute appointed the Vakil Commissioner who recorded her statement on the cost of Smt. Prakashwati The Commission was executed. Revisionist has not visited at the time of execution of Commission to cross-examine Smt. Prakashwati then they filed the revision before Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner by a common order has disposed of he revision No. 151/23 of 1989-90 and 158/24 of 1989-90. The records of one of the suit of the trial court and i.e., suit no. 4 of 1986-87 and that of the court of Additional Commissioner that reference no. 151/23 of 1989-90 have been obtained. 3. Both the counsels argued the case on merit, as the relevant records are available. I have perused the record. 4. The statement of Smt. Prakashwati was originally to be recorded as she has denied the restoration application that no summon was served on her. While summon is shown to be served and signed by her in the original suits, hence his statement is only relevant regarding the denial of her signature in the original summon of the suit. This is the only important matter in this controversy. Both the counsels agreed that the court has power to issue the Commission for examination of the witnesses. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that no expenses was paid to the counsel of his client, therefore, he was not present to cross-examine the witness at Delhi. He also argued that on the medical certificate there is no signature of smt. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that no expenses was paid to the counsel of his client, therefore, he was not present to cross-examine the witness at Delhi. He also argued that on the medical certificate there is no signature of smt. Prakashwati, therefore, the medical certificate was not worth to be relied by the trial court. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that the expenses was not necessary to be paid before the visit Expenses could have been paid when the Commissioner was executed and voucher was submitted regarding the expenses. It was also argued that there has been no order for prior payment of the expenses. The learned counsel also argued that when the trial court has conceded the appointment of Vakil Commissioner for examination of the witness on Commission it s not now open to challenge the medical certificate and the discretion exercised by the trial court. In these circumstances of the case that there is no necessity to review the orders and change it. 7. After considering the whole argument of the parties and the cases relied upon by them as referred in AIR 1953 (Rajasthan) page 32, AIR 1978 page 78, AIR 1964 SC) page 497, AIR 1961 (Allahabad) page 371, and 1974 RD page 262, AIR 1956 page 232 and 1934 AIR page 37. All these laws have been laid down regarding he proceeding under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. None of these cases are related to the power of the Board under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The power under Section 333 and even under Section 333-A of the Act are different. They do not co-exist totally. Power under Section 333-A is vested to exercise the control in examining the order of the subordinate court on legality and impropriety. Whereas the the power under Section 333 of the Act has conferred the power only regarding the exercise of the jurisdiction not vested or non-exercise of the jurisdiction vested or exercise of the jurisdiction in such a way that the exercise of the jurisdiction has resulted immaterial and illegal. Both the parties admit that trial court had power to appoint the Commission. Since the trial court has exercised that power, therefore, there is no necessity now to interfere in the orders of the trial court. Both the parties admit that trial court had power to appoint the Commission. Since the trial court has exercised that power, therefore, there is no necessity now to interfere in the orders of the trial court. On admission the notice was issued as the parties agreed that the issue of the notice amount to the admission of the revisionist. The Additional Commissioner has also not found any illegality and impropriety of the order of the trial court. 8. In these circumstances of the case there is no force in these revisions and they are accordingly dismissed. This order shall govern Revision Nos. 235 and 236 of 1990-91, Nainital.