An order of the Consolidation Officer allowing the impleadment of parties is in the nature of an interlocutory order and no revision lies against such order.

S. R. Misra, J.

1. PETITIONERS, by means of the present writ petition, seek quashing of impugned order dated 21-8-85, 3-10-85 and 23-1-87. First two orders were passed by respondent no. 2 and the last by respondent no. 1.

2. THE petitioners have come with the case that they were recorded as bhumidhars over plot no. 747, khata no. 133, plot khasra no. 533, khata no. 133 situated in village Manki, Pargana Deoband, Tahsil Deoband, District Saharanpur. In proceedings u/section 9 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed Objection claiming themselves to be tenure holders in the aforesaid plots to the extent of l/3ld share. Their objection was rejected on the ground of being time barred. Thereafter, neither any appeal was filed by them nor they preferred any revision.

Subsequently, as one objection of the petitioner was pending, the respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed another application for impleadment of respondent Nos. 5 to 9 on the ground that they were recorded in the basic year, as such, they were necessary parties.

3. THE Consolidation Officer allowed the impleadment application of respondent nos. 3 and 4 on 21st August, 1985. Aggrieved, the petitioner went in revision and the Deputy Director off Consolidation dismissed the same by his order dated 23-1-1987. Hence this petition.

4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the view taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is patently erroneous and his observation to the effect that the revision is not maintainable on account of the fact that it arises out of impleadment order, which is in the nature of inter locutory order and in view of section 48 (2) of the Act, is absolutely illegal. He next urged that once the objection of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 was rejected as time barred and the said order remained unchallenged in appeal or revision, the right, title and interest of respondent nos 3 and 4 became final and it was a close chapter. Entertaining a second objection will amount to nullifying the earlier final order and thus, the count below has exercised its jurisdiction in permitting the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to contest the matter ignoring the fact that their earlier objection was rejected as time barred. He also contended that the principle of res-judicata in applicable in the present case and on account of dismissal of the first objection as time barred, it was not open for the respondent nos. 3 and 4 to avail the remedy, provided against such an order, by filing second application for impleadment. The order of the court below amounts to abuse of judicial process. He also contended that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 have not come with clean hand as they have clearly misguided the Consolidation Authorities by concealing the fact that their first objection was dismissed as time barred and instead of filing appeal or revision, they filed the second objection, which was not maintainable in law.

The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that a thing which could not be done directly, a party is not entitled to do the same act indirectly, that is, having satisfied that after the dismissal of initial objection as time barred the only remedy available to the respondents was to file appeal or revision, which they did not file, they filed the second objection which was wholly ideal and could not be entertained On account of non filing of appeal or revision, the petitioners have now acquired a right and in view of settled law that any amendment, which may take away right which is already accrued to a party, cannot be entertained, the objection of the respondent nos. 3 and 4 is liable to be thrown away. Thus, the view of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the order of the Consolidation Officer is of interlocutory in nature, is without substance and is liable to be quashed by this court.

5. LEARNED counsel for the respondents tried to justify the order of Consolidation Officer and