The court emphasized that rival claims based on wills must be adjudicated on merit, and technical dismissals should not prevent fair hearings.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

Heard Sri. A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Kashi Nath Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Sri. Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the dispute relates to plots of khata no.299 situated in village Baddopur, pargana- Nizamabad, Tehsil- Sadar, District- Azamgarh. The aforementioned disputed plot was recorded in the name of Ram Bachhan (father of petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 & 5) and Ram Lakhan (father of Smt. Kantraji and brother of Ramdas). According to respondent nos. 2 & 3, Ram Lakhan had executed a registered will deed on 15.5.1993 in favour of Smt. Kantraji and Ram Das. According to petitioner, Ram Lakhan had executed an unregistered will deed on 24.9.1994 in favour of petitioner as well as respondent nos. 4 & 5 and the earlier will deed dated 15.5.1993 was revoked. In the proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to "U.P. C.H. Act"), which was registered as Case No.1460 of 1995, the consolidation officer passed an order on 15.5.1995 for recording the name of petitioner along with respondent nos. 4 & 5 on the basis of will deed dated 24.9.1994. Smt. Kantraji and Ramdas also initiated proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. C.H. Act on the basis of registered will deed dated 15.5.1995 which was registered as Case No.1485 of 1995. According to petitioner, against the order dated 15.5.1995, Ramdas Singh and Smt. Kantraji jointly filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Revision No.1393 but respondent nos. 2 & 3 are denying this fact. On 11.3.1996, the aforementioned revision was not pressed by revisionist, accordingly, the aforementioned revision was dismissed vide order dated 11.3.1996. Ramdas and Smt. Kantraji filed a restoration application on 26.6.1998 for recalling the order dated 15.5.1995 before the consolidation officer. Petitioner filed an objection to the restoration application, stating that the delay condonation matter be decided first. The consolidation officer vide order dated 30.1.2001 directed that the delay condonation matter as well as the merit will be decided together. The consolidation officer vide order dated 26.4.2006 dismissed the restoration application dated 26.6.1998 filed by Ramdas and Smt. Kantraji. Against the order dated 26.4.2006 passed by the consolidation officer, an appeal was filed by Smt. Kantraji and Ramdas under Section 11(1) of the U.P. C.H. Act which was registered as Appeal No.255/280. On the same date, the restoration application dated 4.5.2006 was also filed by Smt. Kantraji and Ramdas before the deputy director of consolidation for recalling the order dated 11.3.1996 passed in Revision No.1393 which was registered as Restoration Case No.274. The Appeal No.255/280 filed by Ramdas and Smt. Kantraji was dismissed due to non-substitution of legal heirs of deceased Ramdas by settlement officer of consolidation on 3.8.2009. Against the order dated 3.8.2009, passed by the settlement officer of consolidation, a restoration application dated 29.9.2010 was filed by Smt. Kantraji which was dismissed by the settlement officer of consolidation vide order dated 21.4.2011. Smt. Kantraji and one Girja Devi, daughter of Ramdas, filed a revision before the deputy director of consolidation under Section 48 of the U.P. C.H. Act against the order dated 21.4.2011 which was registered as Revision No.394/11. During pendency of the aforementioned Revision No.344/11, Kant Raji expired, accordingly, Prem Chand Singh (respondent no.2) was substituted in the memorandum of revision. In Restoration Case No.274, the deputy director of consolidation vide order dated 5.5.2017 condoned the delay in filing the restoration application dated 4.5.2006 against the order dated 11.3.1996 and fixed the restoration matter for argument, hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, challe