Shitla Prasad Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) It appears that against the basic year entry no objection under Section 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed but some suit was filed in the Civil Court and the decree was passed by the learned Munsif against which an appeal was filed and effect and operation of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif, as stated by Sri R.N. Sharma, was stayed. A miscellaneous application was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to incorporate the name of the respondent on the basis of the order passed by the Civil Court. The said application was pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, therefore, the respondent filed a writ petition before this Court. The High Court issued direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to dispose of the application. Obeying the order of this Court, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the application filed by the petitioner by the impugned order.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Sharma urged that the observation made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the order passed by the Munsif shall have effect is in the shape of direction to the Consolidation Officer. His submission is that Munsifs judgment is subject matter of appeal and in the appeal the order of the Munsif has been stayed. His further submission is that the observations made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is in the shape of direction and will compel the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9 of the Act against the petitioner whereas there is no objection under Section 9(2) of the Act.;