Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.:- Heard Sri Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri G.S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 4 and the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6. This petition arises out of proceedings in a suit filed by the predecessors of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 under Sections 176/229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950. The suit was dismissed. The respondents preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed. On second appeal filed before the Board of Revenue, the judgment and decrees of the trial court and the first appellate court have been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the trial court for decision afresh. The ground taken by the Board of Revenue for remitting the matter is that a sale deed dated 19th January, 1940 had been produced and in view of the recital contained therein, the said piece of evidence was required to be considered for which it was necessary to remit the matter to the trial court. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmities, inasmuch as, the said additional evidence in the shape of a sale deed was never accepted in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in spite of having taken notice of the said sale deed, which has been made the basis for allowing the second appeal, no substantial question of law was framed so as to permit the Board of Revenue to proceed with the matter. Sri G.S.D. Mishra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that if the said position is accepted then the matter can again be remitted to the Board of Revenue for first passing of the order on admissibility of the said document under Order 41 Rule 27 of the C.P.C. provided a substantial question of law arises as contemplated under Section 100, C.P.C. In the opinion of the Court, both these questions are intertwined and therefore the Board of Revenue will have to first examine as to whether a substantial question of law arises keeping in view the issues raised in the second appeal by the respondents. If the Board chooses to entertain the document it will further have to record its satisfaction in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 before proceeding in the matter. In view of the conceded position before this Court, the order of the Board of Revenue dated 05.03.1997 cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue to proceed in the matter in accordance with the observations made herein above and pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed.