The main legal point established is the need to advance substantial justice and the applicability of provisions under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure in proceedings under the U.P.C.H. Act.

JUDGMENT :

DINESH PATHAK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no. 6 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10.

2. Grievance of the petitioner is that the Settlement Officer of Consolidation has illegally allowed the substitution application on the same day of its filing, without giving opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner.

3. Record reveals that, during pendency of the appeal, a substitution application dated 17.02.2021 along with delay condonation application have been filed by the heirs and legal representatives of appellant Munir-ud-deen with an averment that he has died six months before, therefore, his name may be deleted and in his place names of his sons namely Mohd. Shafi, Mohd. Rahis, Mohd. Ishaq, Mohd. Rafiq, Khushi, Mohammad and Nafees Mohd. may be ordered to be substituted. Aforesaid substitution application along with delay condonation application was entertained on the same day by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, who has jotted in the margin of the application allowing the substitution application and issued notices to the parties fixing 03.03.2021. At subsequent stage, present petitioner has filed objection dated 17.03.2021. The objection field by the petitioner was rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation vide order dated 22.12.2021. Having being aggrieved with the orders passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, present petitioner has preferred a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was dismissed as well affirming the order passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Being aggrieved petitioner has filed instant writ petition assailing orders of Settlement Officer of Consolidation (respondent no. 2) and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no. 1).

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that substitution application has been allowed on the same day of filing of the application without giving opportunity of hearing. It is next submitted that delay in filing the substitution has not been condoned. Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally dismissed the revision on the ground of maintainability being filed against the interlocutory order, therefore, orders passed by respondent No. 1 and 2 are illegal, unwarranted under the law and tained with irregularities which deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondent has contended that substitution order dated 17.2.2021 was passed in presence of opposite party (in appeal) and he has not denied his presence at any stage. In deciding the revision, respondent No. 1 has discussed the merits of the substitution as well. Petitioner (opposite party in appeal) only wants to linger the matter on the ground of technicalities which is not sustainable in the eye of law. It next contended that orders passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 are legal and suffers no infirmity, therefore, they are liable to be affirmed and instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, I am of the considered opinion that the purpose of substitution is only for the survival of the case. No right, title and interest confers upon the substituted person with respect to the property in question. If there is any dispute qua right, title and interest of the substituted person/ s, same would be adjudicated upon by the court competent in a befitting proceeding as advised. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the persons, who are proposed to be substituted in place of deceased Munir-ud-deen, are not the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. This aspect of the matter has properly been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and has given specific finding that revisionist has not adduced any evidence to prove that there are other heirs and legal representatives of the deceased than the