MATHUR, C. J. :- In view of the conflict in two Division Bench decisions of this Court the following question has been referred to this Full Bench:-

"Whether after the record has been called for by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, it is open to him to dismiss the revision on the ground that a necessary party has not been impleaded in the memorandum of revision or he should examine the record and pass such an order which will advance justice after hearing the person who has not been impleaded ?"

2. In Abdul Junaid v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1972 All LJ 435 it was observed:-

"Section 48 does not confer any right on a party to file an application in revision: It confers a power on the specified authority for the sake of keeping the inferior authorities within bounds. For that purpose he may call for the record of an inferior authority and examine it and pass an appropriate order. Having regard to the object underlying Section 48 it appears to us that once the record has been called for by the specified authority, he should not ordinarily refuse to examine the record and to check whether the inferior authority has gone wrong. So long as the record has not been called for, a person who makes an application under Section 48 may be said to be an actor on the scene. But when the record has been called for it appears to us that he ceased to be an actor on the scene. The specified authority who has called for the record becomes the actor on the scene. Accordingly he should examine the record and pass such an order which will advance justice."

3. However, in Kr. Sarjeet Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U. P. Lucknow, 1966 All WR (HC) 138 it was held that the defect of not impleading the necessary parties was fatal and the Deputy Director was not bound to implead all the necessary parties.

4. Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is similar to Section 435 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not unusual for the High High Court to exercise the revisional jurisdiction while hearing an appeal by a co-accused and to acquit the other accused similarly placed even though he has not preferred any appeal or revision if the appeal is being allowed. The revisional jurisdiction is in such cases invariably exercised after the period within which revisions are ordinarily entertained. Reference to this aspect has been made to lay emphasis upon the wording of Section 48 and of similar provisions in other enactments and to indicate that if the contrary view is taken gross injustice can be done to aggrieved parties who may not have been in a position to approach the courts of law.

5. References by the subordinate authorities are covered by sub-section (3) of Section 48 and as such the references are by virtue of sub-section (2) heard by the Director of Consolidation as a revision under sub-section (1) thereof. Sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act runs as below:-

"The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness legality or propriety of any order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit."

6. It shall be noticed that the exercise or non-exercise of the revisional jurisdiction depends solely upon the Director of Consolidation. He can exercise this power suo motu on information received from others or on an application made by an aggrieved party. Limitation has been prescribed under Rule 111 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules for an application in revision made by a party and not for the suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, even if a revision application has b