ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. By the impugned order, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Officer (Original Authority), Additional Commissioner, Meerut (First Appellate Authority) and Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh (Second Appellate Authority) and remanded the matter to the Original Authority with the direction to frame an additional issue as to whether the compromise decree was passed in the suit under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act and its effect. While doing so, the High Court directed that the Original Authority shall decide the case on the basis of the material existing on record and no party shall be allowed to lead any further evidence.

4. In our opinion, when the High Court directed the Original Authority to frame an additional issue and decide the matter afresh, there was no justification to direct that the case be decided on the basis of existing material and no party shall allowed to lead further evidence. This direction is wholly unwarranted.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part, impugned order is modified to this extent that, after framing issue, as directed by the High Court, the Original Authority