Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) THE Bench admitting these writ petitions considered that the propositions laid down in Shyam Sunder Narain Bakshi v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors., 1966 AWR 799 and in Khyali Ram v. Joint Director of Consolidation, UP Lucknow, 1968 AWR 306 may require reconsideration and referred these cases for decision by a Division Bench. That is how these writ petitions have come before this Bench.
(2.) THE matter arises out of an objection Under Section 9(2) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by Raghubir Singh and other Respondents. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objection. Aggrieved, Raghubir Singh filed an appeal. The same was allowed on 29 -1 -1968. The Petitioners then filed revisions Under Section 48 of the Act. 21 -6 -1968 had been fixed for the hearing of the revisions. On that date, Raghubir Singh did not appear. The Dy. Director of Consolidation heard the revisions ex parte and after considering the materials on the record, allowed the revisions. The order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was set aside and the objection filed by Raghubir Singh was dismissed. On 24 -6 -1968, Raghubir Singh filed an application for the setting aside of the ex parte order. He supported it by an affidavit as well as by a medical certificate stating that he was ill from 20 -6 -1968 to 23 -6 -1968 and for this reason, he could not attend the court on 21 -6 -1968, the date on which the revisions were fixed for hearing.
(3.) MAN Singh, Petitioner No. 6, appeared before the Dy. Director of Consolidation on the date on which the restoration application was heard. An other Dy. Director of Consolidation (Sri H.M. Mehrotra) after hearing the parties allowed the restoration application. He believed the affidavit and the medical certificate filed by Raghubir Singh. The order allowing the revisions ex -parte was set aside and it was directed that the revisions shall be heard again. Aggrieved by this order dated 10 -7 -1967, the Petitioners have come to this Court.;