Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Shri Ram Sajivan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 4.10.2012, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (In short, DDC), passed in Revision No. 237 (Veeresh Singh v. Mahesh Chandra), by which the revision filed by the revisionist/petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that, it appears in Case No. 24 of 2009-2010 (Raj Kumar v. Veeresh), an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer (in short, CO) on 25.1.2010, accepting some statements, which were made on affidavits. An objection was raised by the petitioner that in view of sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (in short, Rules), only oral and documentary evidence can be taken into consideration, and there is no provision for filing a statement on affidavit.

3. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Raja Ram v. DDC, Basti and others, 1993 RD 32.

4. It appears, the CO has ignored the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 25.1.2010, which was impugned in the revision. Before the DDC also, the argument was advanced that since the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (In short CPC) in toto, are not applicable, and only few principles are applicable under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short, Act), therefore, the CO has erred in passing the order dated 25.1.2010. The DDC has observed that since the case is still proceeding, therefore, no interference is called for, and dismissed the revision.

5. For appreciating the controversy, the sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 of the Rules would be necessary to be looked into, which is reproduced herein below :

“26 (2). On the date fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 25-A, or on any subsequent date fixed for the purpose, the Consolidation Officer shall hear the parties, frame issues on the points in dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary, and decide the objections.”

From the bare reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 26 it would transpire that on the date fixed under Rule 25-A or any other subsequent date fixed for that purpose, the CO shall hear the parties, frame issues on the points in dispute, take evidence, both oral and documentary and decide the objections. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under this Rule, there is no provision for accepting the statements on affidavit. and since the provisions contained under sub-rule (2) has been held mandatory by this Court in the case of Raja Ram v. DDC (Supra), therefore, the CO as well as the DDC has erred in passing the impugned orders.

6. It is not in dispute that the order impugned in the revision was the order dated 25.1.2010, which was passed on an application filed by the petitioner in a pending proceeding.

7. Section 48 of the Act confers a right upon a tenure-holder to file revision against any order not being interlocutory order. In order to resolve the issue, it would be in benefit to peruse the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 48 of the Act, which is reproduced hereunder :

“48 (1) 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 (other than an interlocutory order) (inserted by U.P. Act No. 20 of 1982 w.e.f. 10.11.1980), passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit.”

8. From the bare reading of the aforesaid Section it would transpire that the revision would be maintainable against any order except the interlocutory order. The interlocuto