- (1.) Heard Shri Ram Sajivan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.10.2012, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (In short, DDC), passed in Revision No. 237 (Veeresh Singh v. Mahesh Chandra), by which the revision filed by the revisionist/petitioner has been dismissed. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that, it appears in Case No. 24 of 2009-2010 (Raj Kumar v. Veeresh), an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer (in short, CO) on 25.1.2010, accepting some statements, which were made on affidavits. An objection was raised by the petitioner that in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short, Rules), only oral and documentary evidence can be taken into consideration, and there is no provision for filing a statement on affidavit.
(2.) In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Raja Ram v. DDC, Basti and others, 1993 RevDec 32.
(3.) It appears, the CO has ignored the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 25.1.2010, which was impugned in the revision. Before the DDC also, the argument was advanced that since the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short CPC) in toto, are not applicable, and only few principles are applicable under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short, Act), therefore, the CO has erred in passing the order dated 25.1.2010. The DDC has observed that since the case is still proceeding, therefore, no interference is called for, and dismissed the revision.;