- (1.) HEARD Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.C. Kishan Srivastava, who represents the contesting respondent Nos. 3 to 5. It is the case of the petitioner that in proceedings for allotment of chak an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on 31.7.2002.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by an ex parte order dated 31.7.2002. The petitioner preferred a restoration application which was allowed by the order dated 9.1.2004. Against the order allowing the restoration application, the opposite party preferred revision No. 39 before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. It is stated that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is also ex parte and it is against this order that the instant writ petition has been filed. The petitioner has submitted that the order impugned is ex parte and that the revision itself was not maintainable having been filed against an interlocutory order and the opposite party has committed manifest, illegality in entertaining and allowing the same.
(3.) ON a specific query by the Court, the counsel for the petitioner has conceded that the issue whether the order impugned is ex parte or not cannot be raised before this Court on the first instance and has therefore made a statement he was not pressing the said point.;