Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD Smt. Shikha Sinha learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri Ashok Kumar Singh Pankaj, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3. This is an utterly frivolously writ petition. C.O. decided the matter ex -parte. S.O.C. On appeal only remanded the matter to the C.O. for decision of the main controversy afresh after hearing the parties. Against the said order petitioner who claims to be adopted son of Badri Prasad, filed Revision No. 1014 of 2012 -13 Dineshwar Pratap Singh v. Smt. Bittoo Singh and an -others in which some ultra technical points were raised. D.D.C. Gonda rightly rejected those contentions and dismissed the revision on 19.10.2013, hence, this writ petition.
(2.) ONE of the technical grounds raised before the Court below and repeated before this Court was that the date was preponed by the S.O.C. However, it has been held by the Reivisonal Court that on all the dates petitioner was also heard by S.O.C. Normally in the order setting -aside ex -parte order, no interference is made in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Bitta is undisputedly daughter of Badri Prasad. The alleged adoption of petitioner by Badri Prasad is also under challenge before Civil Court in the form of Regular suit No. 1368 of 2009 as stated in para 16 of the writ petition. One of the arguments is that as adoption deed is under challenge before Civil Court, but it has not yet been set -aside, mutation on its basis can not be denied. As far as this argument is concerned, mutation orders are always subject to the result of the regular suit. However, ex -parte mutation order can not be refused to be set -aside if sufficient ground for the same has been made out only on the ground of pendency of title suit.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner admits that in the mutation proceedings in which name of petitioner was recorded, respondent No. 3 was not even a party and only Gaon Sabha had been made party. Mutation order gassed on such an application can never e sustained. Accordingly, even if there is some technical defect in the order of S.O.C. and D.D.C. writ Court can not interfere and set aside those orders as the effect of setting aside those orders would be to revive the order of the C.O. Which was utterly illegal. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.;