JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 951 against the order of Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital dated 14-2-1992 passed in Revision No. 89/42 of 1990-91 under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Baramandal, district Almorah in case No. 4 of 1990-91 on 15-3-1991. 2. In brief the facts of the case are that a proceeding under Section 137-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and under Section 47 of Kumaun Division Zamindari Abolition Act was pending in the trial court in which Chandan Singh was being represented by his brother Chandra Kunwar Singh under the power of general attorney. Chandan Singh and his substitution was waived by the trial court under order XXII Rule 4 (4) of the Civil procedure Code. The revision was filed against the order. The learned Commissioner has rejected that revision, against which this revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the record. 4. Bhumidhari certificate was issued in the name of Diwan Singh. During the cancellation of Sanad bhumidhari proceeding under Section 137-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 he died. His sons were substituted. His son Chandan Singh was doing pairvi in the case under general power of attorney in favour of Chandra Kunwar Singh a real brother. Chandan Singh has never appeared and has done no pairvi. On these circumstances of the case the trial court after the death of Chandan Singh passed the order under order XXII rule 4 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code that there is no necessity to substitute the heir of Chandan Singh. This order was challenged before the learned Commissioner who has also considered that it was no necessary to substitute the legal heirs. Since bhumidhari certificate was issued in the name of father of these parties it is being contested by their legal heirs and representatives, hence the Claim of Chandan Singh is also protected. He had also issued a general power of attorney in favour of Chandra Kunwar Singh. In these circumstances of the fact the proceeding does not abate and the order passed by the trial court is within the jurisdiction of the court. He had also issued a general power of attorney in favour of Chandra Kunwar Singh. In these circumstances of the fact the proceeding does not abate and the order passed by the trial court is within the jurisdiction of the court. There is no illegality in its order, hence no interference is called for in this revision under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 and I do not consider it fit case to interfere in the orders of the trial court and that of the revisional court. Hence revision is accordingly dismissed.