JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been referred under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide his order dated 20.11.1990. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was contested by the parties in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Class, Mainpuri. In that suit a restoration application was moved on which there was stage of evidence. The plaintiff moved applications on 24.2.1986 and 23.7.1986 that he should be given opportunity to produce evidence. That application was rejected and the date was fixed for argument on the restoration application. Against this, this revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner who recommended the revision that without affording opportunity to adduce evidence, date should have not been fixed for argument. Against this recommendation objection was filed on 3.12.1990. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the opposite party Sri R.K. yadav, Advocate who has not pressed the objection and requested to accept the revision. Revisionist is absent. Perused the record. 4. Since all the evidence was closed by the trial court, hence the matter could not have been properly adjudicated. It is a case decided, therefore, the revision which lies and the order was in excess of exercise or jurisdiction, hence it is liable to be set aside. I, therefore, accept the revision and set aside the order of the trial court dated 10.12.1987 and direct the trail court to decide the proceeding in accordance with the observations of the learned Addl. Commissioner.