Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 8.6.2012 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short, ‘DDC’) on a restoration application filed in revision No. 101 (Jagdish v. Surajbhan and others), by which learned DDC has allowed the restoration application by setting aside the order dated 16.12.2009.

2. The facts giving rise to this case are that, it appears, revision was decided in absence of Natthu Singh S/o Sri Khadag Singh (respondent No. 2 herein). For recall of the aforesaid order, an application was filed by respondent No. 2 on 2.8.2010 on the ground that the applicant therein (respondent No. 2) was unaware about the pendency of the revision as well as the decision rendered therein and he only came to know the same on 31.2.2010.

3. An objection was filed by the petitioner that February month is only of 28/29 days and the grounds taken in the restoration application are totally false. In response thereto, a reply was filed by respondent No. 2 stating therein that due to typographical mistake, instead of 31.7.2010, 31.2.2010 was mentioned, therefore, respondent No. 2 be permitted to amend the aforesaid date. This application was allowed by the DDC on 8.6.2012, but it appears, no amendment was made in the restoration application. In due course, the petitioner herein has filed an application on 25.7.2012 taking objection that in view of Order VI, Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, either the amendment can be made within time granted by the Court or within 14 days from the date of order and since no such amendment has been made, therefore, now in view of the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the grounds.

The DDC, however, has permitted the correction on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost payable to the petitioner and thereafter, allowed the restoration application on the ground that while passing the order dated 14.12.2009, the respondent No. 2 was not heard.

4. Sri Mishra vehemently contended that the provisions contained under Order VI Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory in nature and in three eventuality, the amendment could be carried on, i.e., (i) within time allowed by the Court, (ii) within a period of 14 days from the date of order and (iii) if the time is extended by the Court. Here in this case, in his submissions, firstly, the Court has not fixed any time for carrying out the amendment, secondly, no amendment was made within 14 days and thirdly, the Court has not extended the time for making the amendment, therefore, the amendment made could not be taken into consideration.

5. On being confronted as to whether the provisions contained under Order VI Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable in the consolidation proceedings, learned counsel for the petitioner could not show from the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 that this provision is applicable.

6. On the contrary, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has submitted that in the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), it has been made specific in certain sections where the Legislature has intended to follow the procedure contained in Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Standing Counsel has invited attention of this Court towards Sections 28, 38 and 41 A of the Act.

7. For appreciating the controversy, the provision contained under Rule 18 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure would be necessary to be looked into, which is reproduced hereinunder:

“18. Failure to amend after order.—If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for the purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date o