- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard Sri R. K. Ojha, learned Advocate, who appeared for the petitioner and Sri Srivastava, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents.
(2.) THIS petition is peremptorily listed under the heard orders. Sri Ojha, learned Advocate informs the Court that writ petition is against interlocutory order and is pending since, 1995 and thus more than 12 years has already passed. Both side submitted that matter is small and as pleadings are complete writ petition, can be finally decided and thus matter has been heard and is being finally decided. As the facts are very small and controversy is little on a brief summary writ petitioner can be conveniently disposed of. Munesar and Bankey are said to co-sharer. Petitioner claims right through transfer deed from Mueshwar and at the same time in respect to the half share. Kalawati who is respondent also claims rights on the basis of a deed. At earlier stage there were some compromise order but that was recalled by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 17. 6. 1986 and the earlier order dated 11. 5. 1983 was set aside and Kalawati the present contesting respondent was permitted to be made party and heard. Thereafter petitioner side moved application and it was pointed out that Munesar is no more and therefore, he be permitted to be added as a co-revisionist so that he may pursue the matter. Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order impugned in this petition has rejected the application and consequently dismissed the revision and thus this order which is under challenge.
(3.) AFTER hearing and noticing the facts and arguments of either sides further facts need not to be noted in detail. There is no dispute about the fact that revision was pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and on the application filed by Kalawati, respondent, earlier order dated 11. 5. 1983 was set aside and by the order dated 17. 6. 1986 revision was restored/placed for being heard on the merits. If there is no body from the revisionist side then obviously revision cannot be heard on merits. Petitioner claims to cooperate in the hearing after being the co-revisionist on the basis of the sale deed. There is no question of co-revisionist as Munesar is no more but at the same time the petitioner claims rights on the basis of a deed. There is reference of two deeds dated 21. 2. 1981 and 16. 11. 1983 and at the same time the deed in favour of the respondent is dated 4. 2. 1983. It is on the basis of the sale deeds and otherwise whatever material is available on the record the rights of the parties is to be decided by the last Court i. e. the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Revisional Court on technical grounds rejected the application filed by the petitioner and as Munesar is no more revision has been dismissed. On the facts, this Court is of the view that clam of the parities will have to be finalised on the merits and that revision will have to be decide on the merits. Kalawati also wanted the same thing as no her move the order dated 11. 5. 1983 was set aside by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by passing orders dated 17. 6. 1986. It is not to be emphasized that impleadment of a party in any proceeding either as revisionist or as a respondent is always meant for the purpose of prosecution and disposal of that proceeding irrespective of their rights which may have merit or not. So long the matter is not proceeded and decided on the merits, rights of the parties cannot be examined and decided. For this reason impleadment of the petitioner as revisionist to get the revision decided on rrierits can be said to be in the interest of justice. It is always open for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to accept or not. to accept the rights of the petitioner or otherwise whatever is found. proper on merits in accordance with law. Thus it will be the concern of the Revisional Court to revive the revision and to decide the claim of the parties on merits on the light of the respective claim after giving adequate opportunity to all concerned properly within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order from either of the sides.;