- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22-6-1987 and 6-3-1987, Annexures 4 and 3 respectively to the writ petition and the order of the Settle ment Officer Consolidation dated 21-1-1985, Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
(2.) IN the proceeding under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the petitioner laid her claim on the basis of Will, in support of which she has adduced the evidence of attesting witnesses and other witnesses besides filing the registered Will. The Consolidation Officer vide its judgment dated 10- 10-1983 ac cepted the petitioner's claim and directed Mutation of the name. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 10-10-1983 a time barred appeal was preferred by the Respondent No. 4 on 17-12-1984. The Settlement Officer Consolidation without disposing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and without condon ing the delay, allowed the appeal by its judgment dated 31-1- 1985. Against the judgment of the Settlement Officer Con solidation the petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolida tion through Sri Suraj Pal Singh Advocate. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Con solidation vide its judgment dated 6-3-1987, against which a restoration applica tion was also filed which too was dismissed on 22-6-1987. I have heard the arguments as has been advanced by Sri Prakash Chandra learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Madhur Prakash who appeared on behalf of the respondents. It was argued by the learned coun sel for the petitioner that the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation be sides being illegal, is in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice as the revisionist has not been afforded oppor tunity of hearing in the matter. According to the learned counsel, the revisionist could not get opportunity of hearing as his counsel Sri Suraj Pal Singh, Advocate who was engaged on her behalf had died before 6-3-1987, and she never engaged Shri Shiv Mangal Singh Tomer, Advocate who is alleged to have appeared on her behalf. Categorical statement has been made in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the writ petition that she never executed any Vakalatnama in favour of Sri Shiv Mangal Singh Tomer, Advocate and the order of the revisional Court dated 6-3-1987 was an ex- parte order and the restoration application was wrongly rejected by the respondent No. 1.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondents in the counter-affidavit it was stated that the petitioner might have engaged Sri Shiv Mangal Singh Tomer, Advocate on her behalf, It appears that when the matter was taken up by this Court on 26-11-1999, learned counsel for the respondents, by a detailed order, was granted time to file Supplementary counter-affidavit annex ing credible evidence (Vakalatnama), if any, was executed in favour of Sri Shiv Mangal Singh Tomer, Advocate. In pur suance of the direction as was given by this Court, on 26-11-1999 a Supplementary Affidavit was filed by the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent, annexing copy of the Vakalatnama as was executed by the revisionist before the Revisional Court. The Vakalatnama of the revisionist as has been brought before this Court did not indicate that she has engaged Sri Shiv Mangal Singh Tomer, Advocate. The Vakalatnama only shows the signature of Sri Suraj Pal Singh Advo cate who was to appear on behalf of the petitioner.;