JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been made under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 7.1.1988. 2. In the partition suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 the lots were prepared and confirmed by the trial court on 26.9.1986. Against that order of the final decree, appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner which was time barred. The application was moved to convert the appeal into revision. That application was allowed by the first appellate court and he has referred the revision to this court with the recommendation that the lots prepared should be set aside as it is against the Rules 157 and 131 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. He also observed that no consideration was made by the trial court about the quality of land, hence the lots prepared is not correct, Against this recommendation objection was filed by the opposite parties but they have not turned up in this court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. Opposite party is absent. Perused the record. 4. There are three plots on which the partition was done. Plot No. 9993 is an abadi plot and in final decree it has been shown to be joint land of the parties. No partition has been made although according to share it has been shown in the lots but the partition will not be done for this plot in this suit. In view of this position of the law the trial court kept this plot jointly to the parties. The learned counsel for the revisionist and the revisionist himself could not show any cause of grievance regarding the lots except that the revisionist pointed out that he should be given his lots in the east of the plot. It means that the division of the remaining two plots has been made east west. In the lots division one is given to Munshi Lal and Division No. 2 is given to Mewa Ram and Chhotey Lal and division no. 3 is given to Chunni Lal and others i.e., the father of the revisionist. It means he is given the lots in the east in accordance with the rules of the plotting of Sub-division of plot. Therefore, no any grievance has been proved by the revisionist against the preparation of the lots. 3 is given to Chunni Lal and others i.e., the father of the revisionist. It means he is given the lots in the east in accordance with the rules of the plotting of Sub-division of plot. Therefore, no any grievance has been proved by the revisionist against the preparation of the lots. However if anything is done against this position of the fact on the spot then he can move the court in view of this observation of this court, therefore, the revision is accordingly decide.