VIKRAM NATH, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri S.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel representing re­spondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Ayub Khan, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos. 3 to 6. As all the parties are repre­sented, this petition is being finally heard at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) ONE Shittal Singh claiming to be co-sharer of the petitioners filed an objection under section 9 (A) (2) of the U.P. Con­solidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter re­ferred to as the Act) before the Consolida­tion Officer. During the pendency of the objection Shittal died and was substituted by his widow Smt. Rishalo. Subsequently, Smt. Rishalo also died. At this stage re­spondent Nos. 3 to 6 applied for substitu­tion on the basis of the registered Will dated 18.3.1988 said to have been executed by Shittal. The Consolidation Officer passed an order requiring respondent Nos. 3 to 6 to file the original registered Will and also to lead evidence to establish the Will in accordance with law. The original Will is said to have been filed. However, no evi­dence was led to establish the same. At this stage respondent Nos. 3 to 6 filed an appli­cation that the witnesses of the Will are not coming to depose as such the Court may summon them as Court witnesses. On the said application the Consolidation Officer passed an order that even in the absence of the witnesses having not been produced, the evidence on record by way of Will was sufficient to substitute respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and further, it would be open to respon­dent Nos. 3 to 6 to claim their right on the basis of the Will in proceedings under sec­tion 12 of the Act. Accordingly, the substi­tution was directed. The petitioners filed revision against the said order, which was initially allowed on 31.7.2009; later on, upon an application filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 the Deputy Director of Consolidation re­called the order dated 31.7.2009 and dis­missed the revision holding that the revi­sion had been filed against an interlocutory order. It is against the said order dated 6.4.2010 the present petition has been filed.
(3.) THE submission advanced on be­half of the petitioners is that the Consoli­dation Officer as also the Deputy Director of Consolidation committed error in allow­ing the substitution of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. However, the Will having not been proved in accordance with law and further, by directing that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 could agitate their right on the basis of the Will in a proceeding under section 12 of the Act.;