S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of allotment of chaks.
(2.) IT appears that when chaks had been allotted to different tenure holders chak holder No. 144 filed an appeal impleading chak -holders Nos. 83 and 242. The appeal of chak -holder No. 144 who is opposite party No. 4 before this Court was allowed. Against the decision of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who had allowed the appeal of chak -holder No. 144 i.e. opposite party No. 4, the Petitioner who is chak -holder No. 83 and opposite party No. 5 who is chak -holder No. 242 jointly filed a revision. This revision was rejected by the Deputy Director in one sentence as follows: Two separate revisions should have been filed against the appellate order Rejected accordingly. After the rejection of the revision these two chak -holders separately filed separate revisions, but unfortunately those two revisions were also dismissed as time barred. Having failed to get redress from the Consolidation authorities the Petitioner has moved the present writ petition and it is argued for the Petitioner that assuming for the moment that the Petitioner who is chak -holder No 83 and opposite party No. 5 who is chak -holder No. 242 could not file a joint revision against the appellate order, the proper course for the Dy. Director was to put the Petitioner and opposite party No. 5 to election. He has acted illegally and with manifest error in not considering the case of even one of the Applicants before him on merits. It was submitted that firstly the two chak -holders Nos. 83 and 242 could have as matter of right filed one single revision against the common judgment which had been passed against them. Secondly as already stated above they should have been allowed to elect.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties on these two points and I am of opinion that this petition has force and should be allowed. When by a single judgment an adverse order was passed against chak holders Nos. 83 and 242 I do not see any reason why cannot they file a single revision against the common judgment. The cause of action for filing the revision was the same and both the persons were aggrieved by the same order and they were aggrieved against, the common opponent the chak -holder No. 144. On the principle of Order I Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure in my opinion it was open to the two chak -holders to file a single revision alternatively the Deputy Director should have allowed the two chak holders to elect as to which one of the revisions should proceed in the view that he took. I have been emphasising that the consolidation authorities should look more to the substance and not technicalities. The revision filed by chak -holders Nos. 83 and 242 should have been decided on merits.;