Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsels for the petitioners.
(2.) Respondent No. 2 is alleged to have executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 who is turn executed sale deed in favour of the petitioners. On the basis of said sale deed the petitioners moved an application under section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Consolidation Officer for mutation of their name. During pendency of the proceedings before Consolidation Officer an objection was filed by the respondent No. 2 to slay the proceedings on the ground that he has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed in favour of respondent No.3. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 6.3.81 dismissed the said objection on the ground that petitioners were not party to the said suit and the suit was not for conciliation of the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the said order respondent No. 2 filed a revision which was allowed vide impugned order dated 30.4.81.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the sale deed executed by the respondent No. 3 in favour of the petitioner was nowhere under challenge as such there was no justification to stay the proceedings on the basis of suit filed by the respondent No. 2 against the respondent No. 3.;