( 1 ) THIS and the connected Civil Revisions Nos. 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, and 1102 are from an order of the Civil Judge, Aligarh, refusing to review a judgment of his predecessor. The parties in all the revision applications are same; they relate to different parcels of land. The applicant was the plaintiff before the trial Court and the opposite party was the defendant. Ten suits were instituted under Section 180, U. P. Tenancy Act, in the trial Court which was that of an Assistant Collector, First Class, by the applicant, claiming to be a sarbarakar, for ejectment of the opposite party alleged to be a trespasser upon the lands in dispute. The suits were contested by the opposite party on the ground that he, and not the applicant, was the sarbarakar and that he was not liable to be ejected. The trial Court decreed the suits holding that the applicant was the sarbarakar and not the opposite party and that the latter was a trespasser. It did not treat the dispute between the parties as one raising a question of proprietary interest and did not refer it to a civil Court for its finding (as contemplated by Section 286, UP. Tenancy Act ). The opposite