JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - These two revisionist has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra dated 4.8.1989 passed in revision under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 against the order of the trial court dated 3.3.1987, 18.3.1987, 25.1.1989. 2. A partition suit was finally decided between the parties. Lots were prepared and concluded on 3.3.1987. Restoration application were filed by the revisionist who are purchaser of one plot of the suit plots on the ground that the final decree prepared earlier should be set aside and he should be given the lot in that plot in accordance with the description mentioned in the sale-deed. This application was dismissed by the trial court on 25.1.1989. Against that two revisionist were filed, one against this order and other against the order dated 3.3.1987. The learned Additional Commissioner has dismissed both the revisions vide it order dated 4.8.1989. Again these two revisions has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act No.1 of 1951 before the Board of Revenue. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist on the point of admission. Perused the judgments of both the courts below. 4. The revisionist was not a party in the original suit of the partition. There is a purchaser, therefore, he has stepped in the shoe of the vendor who was a party in the original suit. He can not challenge the final decree which was a prepared without him. In these circumstances of the case the order of the trial court dated 26.1.1989 and that of Additional Commissioner in both the revisions dated 4.8.1989 need no interference at this stage, therefore, I do not want to exercise my discretion to interfere in the lower court's order which are prima facie perfect and legal order. Therefore, these two revisions are summarily dismissed. This order shall govern Revision Nos. 57-58 of 1991-92 Aligarh.