The maintainability of revisions must be assessed before summoning records, and original records are essential for deciding revisions under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rishabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hari Mohan Srivastava, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the state-respondents.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “U.P.C.H. Act”) orders dated 6.10.1972, 23.8.1973 & 24.8.1973 were passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in respect to plot situated in village-Mirzapur, Chaktulan & Chak Kalandar. Against the aforementioned orders passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in the proceeding under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P.C.H. Act, three appeals under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act were filed by the petitioner along with prayer for condonation of delay of 30 years, which were registered as Appeal Nos. 505, 506 & 507. During pendency of the aforementioned title appeal, Writ B No. 1444/2023 was filed by respondent no. 7 before this Court against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 9.1.2023, which was allowed vide order dated 1.5.2023, setting aside the revisional order dated 9.1.2023 and the appellate court was directed to decide the appeal in pursuance of the appellate order dated 22.2.2007, within a period of 3 months, after notice/opportunity to both the parties. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 1.5.2023, appellate court heard the delay condonation matter in the aforementioned appeals under Section 11(1) of the U.P.C.H. Act and vide order dated 21.11.2023 granted benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and fixed the appeal for arguments on merit. Against the order dated 21.11.2023, respondent No. 7 filed three revisions under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which were registered as Revision Nos.1053, 1054 & 1055. In the aforementioned revision, the prayer was made for summoning the lower court records. On behalf of the petitioner, an application was filed that unless the revision is found maintainable, the record of the proceeding of appellate court may not be summoned as this Court had directed for deciding the appeal within a period of three months. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 21.3.2024 summoned the record of the appellate court and fixed 3.4.2024 for disposal of the revision, hence, this writ petition on behalf of the petitioner, challenging the order dated 21.3.2024.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in title appeals filed by the petitioner along with prayer for condonation of delay, the appellate court has granted benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the appeal and fixed the appeal for disposal on merit, as such, the revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act filed by respondent no. 7 is not maintainable. He further submitted that the revisional court has passed the impugned order, summoning the appellate court record after preponing the date fixed in the revision, as such, the impugned order is ex-party against the petitioner. He further submitted that unless the revision is found maintainable, the record of the proceeding of the appellate court should not be summoned, so that the proceeding of the appellate court may not be held up. He submitted that the appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed in the year 2003 in which the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned in 2023, as such, the appeal should be decided expeditiously on merit. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed application before the revisional court, stating specifically that record of the appellate court may not be summoned unless the revision is found maintainable but the revisional court has not examined the issues in proper manner and passed the impugned order without hearing the question relating to maintainability of the revision under Section 48 of the U.P.C.H. Act. He further placed Annexure No. 14 of the writ petition which is a circular