- (1.) S. Harkauli, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. V. Jaiswal learned Counsel appearing for the caveator.
(2.) THE objections of the contesting respondent under Section 9 were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. THE respon dent preferred an appeal before the Settle ment Consolidation which has been al lowed by order dated 5-1 -1985 and the case has been remanded back to the CO. Against the order of S. O. C. the respon dents preferred a revision which has been allowed by impugned order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the revision of the respon dent was not maintainable because the order of S. O. C. dated 5-1-1985 passed in appeal was remand order and, therefore, interlocutory order as held by decision of this Court in the case of Ram Narayan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, reported in 1996 (87) RD 58 and the decision reported in 1999 (90) RD 313. Both these decisions rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kshitish Chandra Base v. Commissioner, Ranchi, reported in 1981 All CJ 254. The decision of the Supreme Court has been given in the context of Civil Procedure Code. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pritam Singh v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, repotted in 1978 RD 327, for the proposition that remand orders are not always interlocutory order and it depends upon the remand order. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has ar gued that the bar of revision against inter locutory order was introduced in Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act in the year 1982 for the first time and, there fore, the decision of the Division Bench of the year 1978 cited by the respondents in no longer good law. Having considered all the decisions as well as logical points I am of the opinion that remand orders would be interlocutory order if they are simplicitor remand orders. However, if the Court remanding matter has recorded finding of facts or even finding of law which would be binding after remand upon the Court to which matter has been remanded, the remand order would not be inter locutory order, as in respect of those issues it has finally decided the controversy. Having considered the order of S. O. C. it appears that he has recorded a finding that Smt. Azharunnisha was remarried with Zamir Uddin although it was not clear that on what date she had remarried. He has remanded the matter directing the trial Court to frame issue and decide the same.
(3.) ACCORDING to the submission of learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, the finding regarding remar riage is finding of fact recorded by S. O. C. in appeal which will not be binding upon CO. and therefore the remand order is not an interlocutory order. Having considered the submis sions made by the parties I am of the opinion that the issue which is required to be framed by C. O. after remand is an issue regarding remarriage of Smt. Azharun nisha and not merely the issue regarding date of remarriage, therefore, I find that observation of S. O. C. is merely for decid ing the appeal and is not intended to be binding upon the C. O. In this view of the matter the remand order is interlocutory in nature and revision against the same was not maintainable under Section 48. The Consolidation Officer is, therefore, directed to frame independent issue as to whether Smt. Azharunnisha had remar ried with Jamir Uddin and date of remar riage also and after taking evidence of the parties the Consolidation Officer will decide the matter, uninfluenced by obser vations in the judgment of S. O. C.;