Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 and 2.
(2.) FOR the reasons to be recorded notices to opposite parties No. 3, 4 and 5 are dispensed with. There is a small and very simple matter. There are two mutation cases bearing No. 648 ( Kailashi v. Mangali Prasad ) pending in the court of Tehsildar and 412/41/54/92/366 (Jokhu v. Ram Chander ) pending in the court of Naib Tehsildar. The Petitioner says that in both the cases the Petitioner is common litigant. In one of the case there is an order of the High Court for expeditious disposal. There is a Provision under Section 192(A) of the Land Revenue Act: 192 -A. Consolidation of cases. - Where more cases than one involving substantially the same question for determination and based on the same cause of action are pending in one or more courts, they shall, on application being made by any party to the court to which the court or courts concerned are all subordinate, be consolidated in one court and decided by a single judgment. Such cases may be filed direct in the superior court.
(3.) THE reasoning given by the Tehsildar is very strange. If the matters are decided expeditiously it will be a matter of appreciation by the High Court rather than the contempt. The Tehsildar has given a total misconceived finding.;