- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner preferred an objection under S. 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for getting the name of Srimati Dulara expunged from the disputed Khata. The objection was dismissed. He preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. He then went in revision before the Deputy Director. During the pendency of the revision Srimati Dulara died leaving two daughters opposite parties 4 and 5 as her sole heirs. He then applied for bringing opposite party No. 4 on record in place of Srimati Dulara. A dispute was raised to the effect that not only opposite party No. 4 but also opposite party No. 5 was an heir of Srimati Dulara. The matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer for enquiry by the Deputy Director. The Consolidation Officer reported that both opposite parties 4 and 5 being daughters of Srimati Dulara were her heirs. It appears that the petitioner himself admitted before the Consolidation Officer that in fact both of them were daughters of Srimati Dulara. When the matter came up before the Deputy Director the petitioner wanted opposite party No. 5 also to be impleaded as an opposite party in the revision. The Deputy Director rejected the application on the ground that it had been very much belated and held that the revision stood abated. It is in these circumstances that the present petition is filed with the prayer that the aforesaid order of the Deputy Director dated 30th November, 1965 be quashed.
(2.) THE petition is opposed by opposite parties 4 and 5. The facts mentioned above are not in controversy. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contention raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to proceedings before the Consolidation authorities and as such there was no occasion for the Deputy Director to treat the revision as abated. It is also urged that at any rate when the petitioner applied before the Deputy Director for opposite party No. 5 being brought on record along with opposite party No. 4 as heirs of Srimati Dulara there was no occasion for the Deputy Director to reject the application on the ground of delay since the provisions of the Limitation Act do not apply to the proceedings before the consolidation authorities. In my view the contentions raised by the learned counsel are not without substance. I see no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties that by virtue of S. 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure the provisions contained in Order 22 of the Code would apply to the proceedings before the consolidation authorities Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to the suits shall be followed as far as possible in all proceedings in any Court of Civil Jurisdiction. It shall thus be seen that S. 141 can be invoked for the applicability of the procedure provided in the Code only in relation to proceedings in a Court of civil jurisdiction. The consolidation authorities cannot be termed as courts of civil jurisdiction. That being so, S. 141 cannot be invoked for applying the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings before the consolidation authorities. The U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides period of limitation for different kinds of proceedings envisaged by it. By virtue of S. 53B only S. 5 of the Limitation Act is made applicable to the proceedings before the consolidation authorities. It is thus obvious that Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings before the consolidation authorities even though certain provisions thereof by virtue of S. 29 of the Limitation Act may be applicable to proceedings before the consolidation authorities. In that view of the matter it appears that the Deputy Director committed a legal error manifest on the record in rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for bringing opposite party No. 5 on the record as one of the heirs of Srimati Dulara merely on the ground that the application was made after some delay and in ordering that the revision before him stood abated. I, therefore, conclude that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
(3.) IN the end the petition is allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 30th November, 1965 passed by the Deputy Director is quashed with the direction that he shall proceed to dispose of the revision on merits after allowing the petitioners application for bringing on record both the daughters of Srimati Dulara in place of the deceased respondent Srimati Dulara. Petition allowed.;