- (1.) SRI Ramesh Rai has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.2.
(2.) IN proceedings under Section 12 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 the name of the respondent no.2 was ordered to be recorded over the chak in dispute. Against this order restoration application was filed by the petitioner which was allowed. The order allowing the restoration application was challenged by means of a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who has allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 24.3.99 and directed that the restoration application of the petitioner to be decided afresh after hearing the parties. The petitioner has assailed this order on the ground that the order allowing the restoration application was an interlocutory order and therefore no revision against the same was maintainable under Section 48 of the U.P.Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner because in my opinion the order allowing the restoration application was a final order insofar as the restoration application was concerned. It finally decided the said application and was therefore amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Besides, the parties have every opportunity to contest the matter on merits.
(3.) AT this stage learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent no.2 is trying to sale out the property in dispute and this will prejudice the case of the petitioner and also lead to unnecessary complications.;