JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 7.7.1988. The learned Addl. Commissioner passed that order in a revision against a proceeding under Sec. 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. After framing the issue it was pressed that question of bar of suit under Section 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act should be decided afresh. The trial court rejected that prayer on the ground that evidence is essential to be taken. Against that order revision was filed before the Addl. Commissioner. He too dismissed the revision on he ground that it is not essential to take the evidence and in which circumstances the order was passed in consolidation proceeding. This revision has also not been admitted till now. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. Opposite Party is absent. Perused the record. 3. Four issues were framed. Issue No. 1 was whether the plaintiff had share in the suit; whether plot Nos. 299 and 350 has been ear-marked in new plot No. 57; whether the defendants are sole bhumidhars; whether the suit is barred by Sec. 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. The suit in the trial court for co-tenancy, hence the suit can only be disposed of when it is proved that during consolidation question of share was decided between the parties after a litigation then the suit will be barred under Sec. 49 of U.P.C.H. Act. If there was no litigation about the share, right and title of the plaintiff the suit cannot be barred under Sec. 49 of the U.P.C.H. Act. 4. I, therefore, do not consider on these ground it to be a fit case in which revision can be admitted, therefore. It is summarily rejected.