M.P.Singh - (1.) -The present writ petition is directed against an order dated 29-1-1987 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti, thereby rejecting the prayer for consolidation of three objections pending before the Consolidation Officer, Asnahra, Basti.
(2.) IN the present case there is a triangular fight between the petitioners, respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 with regard to the property which initially was in the name of Sukhraj. After the publication of Notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the respondent no. 3 filed an objection under section 9 alleging therein that he was vendee from Sukhraj and the petitioners had been wrongly recorded. Another objection was filed by the respondent no. 4 claiming right from Sukhraj through another sale deed and prayed for expunction of the names of the petitioners. The petitioners came forward with a case that the respondent no. 3 and 4 have got nothing to do with the property in dispute. They claimed right on the basis of a decree passed under Section 229-B of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Learned counsel for the parties advanced arguments on merits of the case with which this Court is not concerned at this stage. This Court is not called upon to record any finding on merits because the objections are still pending before the Consolidation Officer. It has been said that an application has been filed to consolidate all the three objections in respect of the land in dispute coming down from Sukhraj. The prayer was made on the ground that the subject matter of dispute is the same and the parties are same. The matter directly and substantially in issue is also the same.
(3.) THE Consolidation Officer by an order dated 16-10-1986 rejected the said application, against which a Revision was filed by the petitioners which has also been dismissed on 29-1-1987. After hearing counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that if all the three objections are disposed of by a common order that will eliminate the possibility of coming into existence of conflicting orders. No prejudice is going to be caused to any body. If it is done so and it will also avoid multiplicity of litigation. THE only question to be decided in this case is whether the petitioners have got any right from Sukhraj on the basis of the decree under Section 229-B of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 or respondents No. 3 and 4 have got their rights as vendee from Sukhraj by means of a separate sale deed. But this court is not called upon to adjudicate at this stage. The main argument of Sri M. D. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, is that in case if all the objections are consolidated then the matter would be delayed. According to him the objection filed by respondent no. 4 is time barred and it is just possible that the Consolidation Officer may reject the same on this ground alone and if it is done so the respondent no. 4 may file a evision against that order and unnecessarily the other two objections will also be held up. This apprehension appears to be pre-mature. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Swaroop v. Mool Chand, AIR 1983 SC 355 that :- ".........But the laws of procedure are devised for advancing justice and not impeding the same. Code of procedure is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends ; not a penal enactment for punishment and penalities ; not a thing designed to trip people up. ";