JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. By means of the present petition, petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by opposite party no. 1-Settlement Officer Consolidation in appeal registered as Case No.1357/2020, Computerized Case No. 201854083000001357 (Surya Pal and Others Versus Shyam Narayan and Others), which was preferred under Section 11(1) of U.P. Consolidation and Holdings Act 1953 (in short Act of 1953), assailing the order dated 23.01.1965 passed in Case No. 3792 under Section 9A(2) of the Act of 1953 by the Consolidation Officer Bargaon, District Gonda.

3. The facts in brief which are relevant for disposal of the present petition, is to the effect that the appeal was filed impleading dead persons (17 persons). This appeal was preferred alongwith application for condonation of delay duly supported with the affidavit, before opposite party no.1-Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gonda.

4. After presentation of appeal the notices were issued by opposite party no.1. Upon service of notice, petitioner no.1-Surya Prakash alongwith Ram Kewal and Ram Roop Yadav, preferred an application for dismissal of appeal on the ground that appeal has been filed against the dead persons.

5. On coming to know the defect in appeal, the appellants-opposite party nos. 2 to 6 preferred application(s) for substitution for bringing on record the legal heirs of the respondent(s) in the appeal. The opposite party no.1 after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation and taking note of the facts of the case, vide order dated 15.03.2023 rejected the application for dismissal of appeal and posted the matter for hearing on application(s) for substitution.

6. As stated by learned Counsel for the parties, till date on account of interim protection granted by this Court, the application(s) for substitution have not been disposed of.

7. Today, when the case was called out, learned Counsel for the parties have placed the following judgment(s) before this Court:-

1. Gurcharan Singh Versus Surjit Singh and another passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 7735 of 2010 decided on 02.11.2012 reported in (2012) 13 SCC 530.

2. Banwari Lal (Dead) by legal representative and another Versus Balbir Singh reported in (2016) 1 SCC 607

3. Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya Versus Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya (Deceased) through Legal representative and others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 700.

8. In the case of Gurucharan Singh (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the judgment(s) passed in the case of Bank of Commerce Ltd. Versus Protab Chandra Ghosh reported in AIR 1946 FC 13, Gopalakrishanayya Versus Adivi Lakshmana Rao reported in AIR 1925 Mad 1210, State of W.B. Versus Manisha Maity reported in AIR 1965 Cal 459 as also Rule 8 and 9 of order 16 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

"8. Considering the authorities discussed above, the aforesaid provisions of Order 16 Rules 8 and 9 will apply where at the time of filing of the special leave petition, the respondent was alive and after the filing of the special leave petition his legal representatives are sought to be substituted, but will not apply where the respondent was dead when the special leave petition was filed. Where the respondent was dead when the special leave petition was filed, the court can, in the interest of justice, allow an application for amendment of the special leave petition and condone the delay in filing such an application for amendment if the delay is satisfactorily explained.

9. IA No. 2 of 2011 is, therefore, treated as an application for amendment of the special leave petition and as the delay in filing the application for amendment of the special leave petition has been satisfactorily explained in IA No. 3 of 2011, the delay is condoned and in the interests of justice, IAs Nos. 2 and 3 of 2011 are allowed. The prayers in IAs Nos. 4 and 5 are for exemption from filing official translation and from filing death certificate of th