S.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arises out of consolidation proceedings.
(2.) THE Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have held that the claim of the opposite parties is not barred by Order IX Rule 9 and the Consolidation Officer has been directed to decide the case on merits. The Petitioner challenges the legality of these orders. This Court in Shivji Maharaj v. Commissioner Meerut, 1968 AWR 549 has held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure do not apply in proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act. This view is supported by a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Bijai Narain Sinha v. State of UP, 1969 AWR 482. It has been argued by Mr. B. Dikshit counsel for the Applicant that a Division Bench of this Court in CMW No. 269 of 1964 has held that on the abatement of a suit the person whose suit has been abated cannot claim any right before the consolidation authorities. He submits that applying these principles in the present case the contesting opposite parties cannot claim the declaration once his suit was dismissed for default. I am unable to accept this contention. The suit abated stands on a different footing than the suit dismissed for default. The consequence of the suit dismissed in default is that the person whose suit has been dismissed for default cannot file another suit on the same cause of action. In consolidation proceedings the claim is not made on that cause of action. The cause of action in consolidation proceedings is the entry in the basic year. The entry in the basic year is different from the cause of action on which a suit was instituted previously.
(3.) IN my opinion, the claim cannot be said to be barfed under Order IX Rule 9 Code of Civil Procedure in view of the decision of this Court reported in Mandir Shivji Maharaj v. Commissioner Meerut (supra). If the Deputy Director of Consolidation has decided the case in accordance with the view of this Court it can not be said that he had committed any mistake muchless a mistake apparent on the face of the record. No case for interference is made out. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.;