IMPORTANT POINT
Under O. VI R. 17 (2) CPC all such amendments, which may be necessary for purpose of determining real questions in controversy between parties, should be allowed.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.—Heard Sri R.N.S. Yaday and Sri H.D. Verma, for the petitioners and Sri Jokhan Prasad, for respondent-2. With the consent of the parties writ petition is decided finally.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.01.2015 allowing the revision of respondent-2 and setting aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.09.2013, by which amendment application filed by the petitioners for amending their written statement was allowed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute relates to basic consolidation year khata 14 of village Paraspur alias Dubauli, tappa Ganeshpur, pargana Nagar Purab, district Basti. In basic consolidation year, khata in dispute was recorded in the names of the petitioners and respondent-2. Paltu (respondent-2) filed a time barred objection (registered as TB Case No. 78) under Section 9-A of the Act, for deleting the names of the petitioners from khata in dispute. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 22.12.2010 dismissed the objection of respondent-2 as time barred. Respondent-2 filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 956). There was another appeal of respondent-2 i.e. Appeal No. 406 from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 30.12.1995. Both the appeals were consolidated and allowed by Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 15.06.2012 and orders of Consolidation Officer dated 30.12.1995 and 22.10.2010 were set aside and the matters were remanded to Consolidation Officer for deciding on merit after giving opportunity of evidence/hearing to the parties. The petitioners filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2652 of 2010). However, as interim order was not granted in aforesaid revision as such the proceedings before Consolidation Officer was started, in pursuance of the remand order.

4. The petitioners filed their written statement/counter objection on 10.09.2012 before Consolidation Officer. In this written statement/counter objection, the petitioners have given a pedigree of the parties, in which they had shown Judawan (predecessor of respondent-2) and Jaggu (predecessors of the petitioners) as sons of Khushi Lal. Some other errors have also been crept in this written statement/counter objection. The petitioners, therefore, filed an application dated 05.06.2013 for amendment of written statement/counter objection. Respondent-2 contested and filed an objection in the amendment application. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 19.08.2013, held that a perusal of written statement/counter objection and amendment application show that incomplete pedigree was mentioned in written statement/counter objection. Issue between the parties is in respect of pedigree. As such proposed amendment will be necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. The proposed amendments do not change nature of controversy between the parties. On these findings he allowed the amendment application.

5. Respondent-2 filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 366/ D20141714001277) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by the Collector/ Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 23.01.2015, held that from the rival pedigree set up by the parties, there was dispute between them as to whether Khushi Lal had two sons or one son. The Consolidation Officer held that pedigree as given in written statement/counter objection was incomplete but he had not recorded any findings as to how it was incomplete. He had not taken notice of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation. Amendment application should not have been decided without taking evidence. Pedigree given in the plaint of Civil Suit No. 192 of 1973 was not liable to be accepted without any evidence. On these findings, the revision was allowed and order of Consolidation Officer dated 19.08.2013 was set aside and the case was remanded to decide afresh after considering evidence