JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These thirteen reference has been made by the commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital vide his recommendation dated 22.3.1982. 2. In the court of Sub-Divisional Haldwani, district Nainital 13 cases were filed under Section 229-B/209 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by Hari Chand. His legal representatives moved the application to withdraw the suit. The learned trail court allowed the withdrawal of the suit subject to the payment of cost to file fresh suit. The revision was filed against that order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 27.6.1987. The learned Commissioner has recommended for accepting the reference on ground that the order of the learned trial court is illegal as the suit could not have been allowed to be withdrawn because the Mikhtar-e-am was not executed by the plaintiff Harichand on sufficient stamp. That the plaintiff has pleaded in the notice that he is in possession from 1974 fasli but his possession is recorded from 1375 fasli but his possession is recorded from 1375 fasli in the revenue records. Hence he recommended to accept the references. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. This is not a ground on which the suit could be properly rejected when there is a pleading that he was in possession from 1374 fasli and the entry is recorded in revenue record from 1375 fasli, hence this ground is totally unjustified by referring the revisions 5. As regard the authority to withdraw the suit the finding recorded by the trial court is final. The revisional court has no jurisdiction to enter into the facts of the case and record its own finding. The plaintiff has not challenged his authority. The plaintiff also not have done the pairvi after the execution of Mukhtanama. Therefore the opposite party has no grievance that the plaintiff is not represented properly. Even the counsel is competent to withdraw the suit and the application for withdrawal was filed through the counsel. In these circumstances there is no need to set aside the order of the trial court and reference are not acceptable. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party also argued that the references were dismissed in default. Even the counsel is competent to withdraw the suit and the application for withdrawal was filed through the counsel. In these circumstances there is no need to set aside the order of the trial court and reference are not acceptable. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party also argued that the references were dismissed in default. I recall that order because when the reference has been forwarded to the Board it is the duty of the Board to examine it and pass order on merit rather than to dismiss in default. Hence these references are not accepted and the order of the trial court is within the jurisdiction and there is no material illegality in its order which needs revisional interference. This order shall govern Reference No. 71 to 80 of 1982-83 and Reference No. 8, 9 and 44 of 1981-82/Ninital.