Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri G.C. Pant, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.N. Singh appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
(2.) The writ petition arises out of a proceeding under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act'). An objection was filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Act claiming co-tenancy right along with opposite party Nos. 4 to 6 to the extent of 1/2 share. Initially a compromise was entered into between the parties before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of which the name of the petitioner was directed to be recorded as a co-tenant. The O.P. Nos. 4 to 6 challenged the order passed on the basis of the compromise by filing an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, against which they preferred a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh. The Consolidation Officer after remand decided the dispute vide order dated 21.8.1971 and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.12.1972. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner preferred a revision. On the date fixed for hearing of the revision, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner to adjourn the case on the ground that his Counsel was not available. The said application was opposed by the contesting respondents on the ground that his other Counsel Sri Ambika Tiwari is present in the Court and that the petitioner has not paid the cost imposed for seeking adjournment on the last date. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 11.10.1972 dismissed the revision with the finding that the petitioner has expressed his inability to pay the cost. He has further held that though Sri Ambika Tiwari, Counsel for the revisionist is present but he has failed to advance any argument on the merit of the revision. Subsequently, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order which was also dismissed on 23.2.1973. Feeling aggrieved with the said two orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) It has been urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that even if the petitioner has not paid the cost and expressed his inability to pay the cost on the said date his revision could not have been dismissed on the said ground. It has further been urged that once the record was summoned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation it was incumbent upon him to have looked into the dispute and decide the same on merits rather than dismissing it on technicalities.;