Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the first to third respondents and Shri S.N. Tripathi for the fifth respondent.
(2.) The fifth respondent Smt. Gulabi Devi has filed an appeal on 21.09.2011 before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation challenging the order dated 24.01.1995 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer on the basis of alleged conciliation between the parties. In the appeal, the fifth respondent contended that she had never entered into any conciliation nor has signed the compromise deed. The thumb impression on the compromise deed is not that of the fifth respondent. Thus, the main dispute in appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was whether the compromise deed, on the basis of which the Assistant Consolidation Officer disposed of the matter bears the thumb impression of the fifth respondent or not. Although, it was the burden of the fifth respondent to have proved the said fact, but it seems that an application for obtaining opinion of expert in relation to the thumb impression on the alleged compromise deed was filed by the petitioner. It was rejected by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 13.08.2014. The only reasoning given by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for rejecting the said application is that the matter is yet to be heard and decided on merits. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a revision, which has been dismissed on the ground that the order impugned is an interlocutory order. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 13.08.2014 and the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 28.07.2016.
(3.) It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the controversy raised in the appeal, it was necessary that an expert opinion is obtained. It is submitted that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has rejected the application mechanically.;