R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) IN this petition directed against the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation the primary question is the binding effect of a judgment given by the civil court on a compromise between one Ram Agya Giri since deceased, and Gaon Sabha in a suit filed by Ram Agya Giri for management of the Math. It is admitted that one Baba Bhuvan Nath founded the Math and after the death of Narbedeshwar Giri in 1964, the last Mahant, dispute arose be tween petitioner and Bhagwan Giri for recording of their names as Sarbarakar, The Gaon Sabha also filed objection and claimed to be private property of Narbadeshwar Giri. It was alleged that as Narbadeshwar Giri died heirless the property vested in Gaon Sabha. It was held by the Deputy Director Con solidation that the property was Math property; that petitioner was not the Sarbarakar and that the question of Sarbarakarship could be decided by Civil Court only. Against this decision petitioner filed a writ petition No. 4969 of 1969 which was decided by brother R. B. Misra, J. on 20.12.1971. The petition was partly allowed and the following directions were issued: "For the reasons given above the writ petition is partly allowed, the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation dated 21st June, 1969 is quashed only in respect of Khata No. 56 in so far as the Deputy Director has entrusted the management of the Math property to the Gaon Sabh. The person in defacto management of the property after the death of Narbedeshwar Giri would retain management till the adjudication of question by a competent Civil Court.'' After this a suit was filed by one Ram Agya Giri in the Civil Court impleading Gaon Sabha as a party and a consent decree was passed on 6th November 1971. A copy of the decree was filed before the Consolidation Officer and on 10th November, 1971 an order was passed directing mutation of Ram Agya Giri's name in revenue records. On becoming aware of it the peti tioner filed an application praying that the order be set aside as it was passed behind his back and he was not bound by the Civil Court decree which too was passed without impleading him. The decree was also challenged as col lusive and fraudulent. The application was rejected both by the Consolida tion Officer and Deputy Director Consolidation on the ground that it was not maintainable. It cannot be disputed that the -petitioner was a person vitally interested but Ram Agya Giri obtained a decree without impleading him. The directions by the High Court to-obtain declaration from Civil Court was to the parties in the writ petition. No suit was filed by petitioner, Gaon Sabha or anyone else who was a party. Even in the suit filed by Ram Agya Giri the Gaon Sabha did not point out this, rather it agreed to a consent decree. The decree did not bind the petitioner. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the remedy of the petitioner was to file an application under Order 9 rule 13. The argument is devoid of any merit. The petitioner being not party in the suit could not file any application. Nor is there any merit in the submission that there being no clerical or arithmetical error the consolidation authorities were justified in rejecting the application as not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Chote lal v Gaon Sabha (1966 R. D. 149). It was not necessary to decide the controversy whether error com mitted by the Consolidation Officer in mutating name of Ram Agya Giri is covered by phrase clerical and Arithmetical- error as the application filed by Ram Agya Giri for mutation of his name before the Consolidation Officer was not maintainable. The application was filed either in continuation of the earlier proceedings which came up to this Court or it was a fresh application. If it was a continuation of the earlier proceedings the Consolidation Officer could not pass the order without notice to petitioner. If it was fresh objection the Consolidation Officer should have decided its maintainability. From the order of the Deputy Director he appears to have taken it as continuation of the earlier proceedings. Ram Agya Giri not being a party nor claiming through any of the parties could not make an application for mutation nor could the consolidation authorities treat it as an order in pursuance of the direction issued by this court in December, 1971. IN the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 10th March, 1972 and 6th October, 1972 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Deputy Director Consolidation are quashed. It shall be open to the parties to comply with the direction issued by this Court on 20th December, 1971. The parties shall bear their own costs.;