ORDER :- The two questions canvassed on behalf of the petitioners is the legality of setting aside of an order, although ex parte, by the Deputy Director Consolidation, on grounds, which, on the finding did not make out sufficient cause for the absence of the opposite parties on the date of hearing. And infirmity in the order, thereafter, passed on merits without adverting to the material evidence on record consisting of oral evidence etc. on adverse possession, the plea on which the claim by the opposite party was founded before the Consolidation Officer.

2. To substantiate the first argument reliance was placed on S. 201 of U. P. Land Revenue Act which by Legislative incorporation applies to proceedings under U. P. Consolidation of Holding Act. Its applicability to proceedings in revision under S. 48 of the Act is no more in doubt (see 1969 All WR (HC) 592, Ram Charan v. Deputy Director Consolidation), S. 201 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act reads as under:

" S. 201 - No appeal shall lie from an order passed under S. 200 ex parte or by default. But in all such cases, if the party against whom judgment has been given appears either in person or by agent (if a plaintiff, within fifteen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document