S.R.YADAV, j. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred against the judg­ment and decree dated 29-12-97 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Faix.abad Division, arising out of a suit under Section 229-B of UPZA and LR Act heard and decided by the SDO, Barabanki on 26-4-97.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the relevant papers on file. The learned Counsel for the appel­lants mainly narrated the history of thc case and submitted that the trial Court rightly cancelled thc Parwana amal­daramad, that thc forged orders needed no notice, that the lower appellate Court has unnecessarily remanded the matter again to trial Court on the points which had already been dealt with and decided properly and hence thc second appeal should be allowed and the lower appellate Court's order be set aside. In support of his submissions he cited the case law reported in1991 RD 47and 1995RD421. In reply to above the learned Counsel for thc respondents submitted that the second appeal was not maintainable, that the learned trial Court passed thc im­pugned order with out ATexamining the records and that no efforts were made to requisite thc file as such thc remand order was just and proper.
(3.) AFTER hearing thc learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the records it appears that on an application dated 15-11-90 under Section 9 Rule 13 CPC, the ordcr dated 26-4-97 was passed by the trial Court where by iheparwuna amaldanmuid in respect of orders dated 25-7-84 and 29-5-86 were cancelled. Aggrieved by thc above order, first appeal was preferred before the Commissioner, Faizdabad Division, which has been heard and decided vide the Additional Commissioner's order dated 29-12-97 where by thc whole matter was remanded to trial Court to examine the relevant records in respect of the case No. 711 which is under challenged before the Board in second appeal.;