VIKRAM NATH,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.N. Singh, Advocate representing the caveator respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the respondent nos.4 & 5 are proforma respondents. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being finally heard at the stage of admission itself.
(2.) OBJECTIONS were filed by the respondent no.3 under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for expunging the name of the petitioner over the land in dispute and for recording his name on the basis of a mortgage deed dated 13.8.1959 executed by Hari Nath Singh, father of the petitioner in favour of Guru Prasad Mishra, father of the respondent no.3. The petitioner filed written statement alleging that the mortgage has been redeemed in as much as the amount of money advanced was returned and on the original deed itself an endorsement was made by Guru Prasad Mishra to that effect on 5.11.1959. Both the parties led evidence and thereafter the Consolidation Officer by order dated 16.4.2003 rejected the objections of respondent no.3. An appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act was filed which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer. Three revisions were filed against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation clubbed all the three revisions and heard the arguments on 24.5.2008 and reserved the same for delivery of judgment fixing 7.6.2008. However judgment was not delivered on the said date and the revisions were being adjourned for different reasons. After lapse of about 1-1/2 years the respondent no.3 filed an application on 27.1.2010 praying that expert opinion be called for to match the signatures of his father on the mortgage deed and the redemption. The petitioner filed objections to the said application. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 24.7.2010 allowed the application of the respondent no.3 dated 27.1.2010 and directed for leading evidence with regard to the expert opinion. Petitioner filed an application for recalling the order dated 24.7.2010 which has been rejected by order dated 21.8.2010. It is against the aforesaid two orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the present writ petition has been filed. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation (revisional authority) had no jurisdiction to direct for leading expert evidence with regard to the documents which were already on record of the trial court i.e. the Consolidation Officer and the respondents having failed to lead such evidence at the trial stage, cannot be permitted to do so at such a belated stage as it would amount to filling up lacuna in their evidence. Further according to the learned counsel for the petitioner leading of the additional evidence at appellate or the revisional stage is prohibited in general, subject to exceptions mentioned under Order 41 Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of Anar Devi and another versus Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, reported in 2006 (100) RD 650.
(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was justified in the facts of the case and if in the interest of justice he had allowed the parties to lead additional evidence, it would be an interlocutory order and this Court may not entertain this petition in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.;