Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P.N. Singh appearing for contesting respondent No. 4.
(2.) The facts, giving rise to the present dispute, are as under: An objection under section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6. During the pendency of the said objection, one of the respondent-Keshaw Prasad Singh died. After about 10 years of the death, the heirs of Keshaw Prasad moved an application for being substituted in his place. The substitution application was allowed by the Consolidation Officer on the same day i.e. on 5.11.2003. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal mainly on the ground that the substitution application was filed after about 10 years without there being any proper explanation for condonation of delay in filing the application as, such the same has wrongly been allowed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the appeal, against which a revision was preferred. The Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 30.8.2006 dismissed the same holding that the substitution application was rightly allowed and the proceedings were not liable to be abated. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned' Counsel for the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer wrongly allowed the substitution application on the same day filed without even inviting any objection even though the application was filed with a delay of 10 years.;