JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad dated 15.11.1988. 2. In the trial court a suit was filed under Section 209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by defendant Shakir khan. The revisionist filed written statement and moved an application on 9.11.1987 that the Samiti should be allowed to file khasra as well as they also prayed that the preliminary issue, whether the disputed land is within the meaning of U.P.Z.A and L.R. Act of not? The Samiti had not proposed that issue was framed by the presiding officer, therefore, the presiding officer on 16.11.1987 passed order that the issues pointed out in the application will be decided after taking evidence in the suit and rejected the application. The learned trial court also fixed the date for recorded evidence. The revisionist filed revision under Section 333-A of U.P Act No. 1 of 1951 against that order in the first appellate court. The revision was dismissed in default, hence the restoration application was filed which was rejected by the learned Commissioner by his impugned order, hence this revision in this court under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 had been filled by the Ganna Sahakari Samiti. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. No one is present from the side of the opposite parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that he had filed the revision before the learned Commissioner and his revision ought to have been decided there. The learned Commissioner have not restored the revision, therefore the revision filed by the Ganna Sahakari Samiti cannot be decided. Since whole file has come before the Board whether the Board is in position to pass any order on the basis of record available here? The question of maintainability is not a question of law. Question of maintainability depends on evidence. Unless the evidence is taken the question of maintainability cannot be decided by the trial court. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trail court should decide whether the suit is maintainable or not. His contention is that the disputed plot is recorded as agricultural land. Question of maintainability depends on evidence. Unless the evidence is taken the question of maintainability cannot be decided by the trial court. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trail court should decide whether the suit is maintainable or not. His contention is that the disputed plot is recorded as agricultural land. Even the Khasra filed by the revisionist only indicate that the dispute plot is recorded in remarks column as abadi in 1984 fasli, 1388 fasli, 1989 fasli, 1390 fasli, 1391 fasli and 1392 fasli. But it is recorded as agriculture land in 1381 fasli, 1382 fasli, 1383 fasli, 1384 fasli, 1385 fasli, 1386 fasli and 1387 fasli. This entry cannot be believed either in favour of the revisionist or in the favour of the opposite party. More evidence is necessary to clarify and the trial Court should proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sections ance with the provisions of Sections 331-a of 148 and 149 read with Sections of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 then only the trial court will be able to decide whether it is abadi or not. This whole exercise is to be done by the trial court, therefore, the revisionist filed in the lower court and in this court are infructuous and the trial court is not in position to decide the issue unless whole inquiry is done in accordance with law. The trial Court is directed to conduct the inquiry for the determination of the issue whether it is abadi or not after conducting the inquiry as contemplated under the law. This revision is decided accordingly.