JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been recommended by the learned Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad vide his order dated 14.9.1982. 2. In the trial court the suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was pending. One of the defendant Chetram died and substitution application was moved. The trial court allowed the substitution application on payment of cost of Rs. 15/- Revision was filed against that order, that while the Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the substitution application has not assigned any reason for accepting this substitution application. He has also not given the finding whether the suit has abated or not. Objection was filed against this recommendation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one is present from the side of the Opposite Parties. Perused the record. 4. I have seen the order of the trial court. It was allowed only on the payment of cost. He has not observed in the order whether the substitution application was within time or not? Therefore, the recommendation made by the Addl. Commissioner is perfectly justified and I accept it and direct the trial court to decide the substitution matter afresh after taking the objection and evidence of the parties. During the pendency of the revision some of the Opposite Parties has also died. Their substitution can be decided only after taking the evidence before the trial court as who are the heirs of the deceased, therefore, application should be filed before the trial court regarding their substitution. Reference is accepted and the order of the trial court is set aside and the trial court is directed to decide it afresh.