Amendments to grounds of appeal that seek to change the character of the case cannot be permitted at advanced stages of litigation, particularly when earlier opportunities to introduce such arguments were available.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondent no.4 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 25.07.2023 (Annexure No.9) passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent no.2) in Revision No.0234 of 2023 affirming the order dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure No.7) passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation (respondent no.3), rejecting the amendment application moved on behalf of the present petitioner in appeal No.1761 (Hari Prakash Saxena vs. Smt. Shashi Saxena).

3. Facts culled out from the record are that the property in question basically belonged to Ajudhya Prasad. At the advent of consolidation proceeding, present petitioner has filed an objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (In brevity U.P.C.H. Act). On the basis of settlement took place between the petitioner and Smt. Bhagwandei (wife of Ajudhya Prasad), Assistant Consolidation Officer has allowed the objection, vide order dated 08.12.1986, granting 2/3 share to the present petitioner and 1/3 share to Smt. Bhagwandei. Having been aggrieved, respondent no.4 has filed appeal at belated stage. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 19.05.1993, has allowed the appeal and relegated the parties before the Consolidation Officer to get the matter decided afresh. In pursuance of the order dated 19.05.1993 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, objection under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act filed on behalf of the present petitioner has been reconsidered and allowed by order dated 25.04.2022 passed by Consolidation Officer, consequently, previous order dated 08.12.1986 passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was affirmed. Thus, 2/3rd share of the property remains with the petitioner and remaining 1/3rd share with Bhagwandei. Having been aggrieved with the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by Consolidation Officer, respondent no.4 has preferred appeal. However, in the meantime, Smt. Bhagwandei had died, therefore, proceeding under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act has been instituted on behalf of the present petitioner and same has been decided by separate order dated 25.04.2022 passed by Consolidation Officer acknowledging the right and title of respondent no.4 over the 1/3rd share of Smt. Bhagwandei. Present petitioner, however, has preferred separate appeal against the order dated 25.04.2022 passed in Case No.14/19/18/21/22 under Section 9 -A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act by which previous order dated 08.12.1986 passed by Assistant Consolidation Officer was affirmed. During pendency of the appeal present petitioner has moved an amendment application dated 30.12.2022 to amend the grounds of appeal. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, vide order dated 23.03.2023, has dismissed amendment application. Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner, has dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, which are under challenge before this Court.

4. Having considered the rival submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is manifested that despite the order dated 25.04.2022 having been passed by Consolidation Officer in Case No.14/19/18/21/22 under Section 9 - A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act in favour of the present petitioner, he has preferred appeal assailing the said order dated 25.05.2022. During pendency of appeal petitioner has