Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Through this writ petition, the petitioenrs have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.10.2012, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 815/874 (Sultana Begum v. Alimuddin and others), by which the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the revision and remitted the matter back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for deciding the recall/review application dated 29.12.2009, after providing opportunity of hearing to all parties of the proceeding.

2. The facts giving rise to this case are that, the order dated 19.12.1973, passed by Consolidation Officer, Pushp Nagar, Azamgarh was made subject-matter of Appeal No. 2492/2877 of 2009 (Alimuddin and others v. Khursheed and others). The appeal was time barred by 36 years, therefore, it was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, has rejected the application for condoning the delay vide order dated 26.12.2009.

3. The petitioners, herein, have filed an application dated 29.12.2009 for recall of the order dated 26.12.2009 on the ground that the aforesaid order was passed ex parte and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has allowed the same vide order dated 15.2.2010, holding that the aforesaid order was an ex parte order, and fixed 17.2.2010. On that day, he condoned the delay and allowed the application for condonation of delay as well as appeal, both. This order was subject-matter of the Revision No. 815/874 (Sultana Begum v. Alimuddin and others).

4. Shri K.P.S. Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in allowing the revision and quashing the order dated 15.2.2010 and 17.2.2010, passed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation. In his submissions the order dated 26.12.2009 was not an ex parte order and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has exceeded his jurisdiction in condoning the delay and allowing the appeal.

5. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners have been refuted by Shri Brijendra Kumar Mishra and Shri Sanjiv Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondents on the ground that once the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act was rejected after hearing learned counsel for the appellant, then there was no occasion for the Settlement Officer Consolidation to hold that this order was an ex parte order as against the appellant, and taking note of that, recalling the order dated 26.12.2009 after condoning the delay and allowing the appeal.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute that the Appeal No. 2492 (Alimuddin and others v. Khursheed and others) was filed against the judgment and order dated 19.12.1973, passed by the Consolidation Officer Pushp Nagar, Azamgarh, after 36 years alongwith an application for condonation of delay. It is also not in dispute that the aforesaid application was rejected by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant. Further, the recalling of the order dated 26.12.2009 on the instance of the petitioners and allowing the appeal after condoning the delay on 17.2.2010 are also not in dispute.

7. The lawyers are engaged in the Court and they pursue the matter before the Court on engagement by the parties. Appendix H to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the format for engagement of a counsel in the Court of law. The aforesaid format is reproduced hereunder :

“VAKALATNAMA

In the Court...........................Suit/Miscellaneous case/Civil Appeal/Execution Case No. ..............of 19..../20......,fixed for Plaintiff/Appellant/Applicant/D.H.............Defendant/Respondent/Opposite Party/J.D. Vakalatnama of Plaintiff/Appellant Applicant/D.H./Defendant/Respondent/Opposite Party/J.D.

In the case noted above Sri........................., each