B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned orders dated 11th August, 1989, 12th September, 1986 and entire proceedings commenced on the basis of objection of opposite party.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as the restoration application preferred by the opposite party against the order of Consolidation Officer was rejected consequently the appeal filed by them before the Settlement Officer Consolidation was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Gulab Chandar v. Munsif West, Allahabad (1988 A.C.J. 259).
(3.) Heard learned counsel foe the petitioner. Under the impugned orders as the case has been remanded for disposal on merits, parties shall get opportunity to get the matter decided on merit, consequently no injustice appears to have been done. As regards the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in that case it has been held that suit filed earlier was vexatious and collusive consequently it was quashed. In the present case objection of opposite party cannot be said to be vexatious simply because their restoration application was rejected. Consequently present petition fails and is dismissed. However, as the matter has dragged on for too long, case may be decided by Consolidation Officer at the earliest preferably by 15th February, 1990.;