Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. - (1.) When the case was taken up on 31.5.2018, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 reiterated the same objection as was raised by him on an earlier date i.e. 6.4.2018 when the following order came to be passed: "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar, whereby the revision filed by Shyam Narain was dismissed but the revision filed by the opposite party no.2, was allowed. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that the order sought to be quashed is a judicial order and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam and another Vs. Chhabi Nath and others, 2015 5 SCC 423, the writ petition under Article 226 against judicial order of civil court is not maintainable. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suraj Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation,2016 34 LCD 1860, has held that though the judgment of Radhey Shyam is in respect of civil court but the same will equally applied to revenue court also. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to satisfy the court as to how in view of the aforesaid legal position, the writ petition for quashing of the judicial order under Article 226, is maintainable. List this petition for hearing on admission on 18th April, 2018."
(2.) In order to repel the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, Sri I.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance upon a catena of judgements to make out a distinction between the revenue/consolidation courts and civil courts and thus, it is argued that the revenue/consolidation courts not being strictly the civil courts in essence, would thus, not be covered under the judgements mentioned in the order on the basis of which a preliminary objection has been raised.
(3.) The judgement cited by Sri I.D. Shukla may be mentioned as under: JUDGEMENT_24_LAWS(ALL)7_2018_1.html JUDGEMENT_24_LAWS(ALL)7_2018_1.html ;