JUDGMENT Lakshmi Prasad, J. - The following questions have been referred to the Full Bench: - 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the present case, a revision against he order of Deputy Director dated 23-3-1963 was maintainable and is the order of Joint Director dated 13-5-1963 depositing the said revision legally correct ? 2. If the said revision is held to be maintainable, would such a revision be governed by the amended Sec. 48 or by Sec. 48 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act VIII of 1963? 2. The material facts of the case are that a second appeal in an objection filed under Sec. 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act as it then stood was instituted on the 11th February, 1963 and was dismissed on the 23rd March, 1963 that is subsequent to the U.P. Act VIII of 1963 coming into force. A revision was filed on the 15th April, 1963 from the order dated the 23rd March, 1963 passed in second appeal by a Deputy Director. The revision came up for hearing before a Joint Director of Consolidation who by his order dated the 13th May, 1963 directed it to be deposited on the ground that no such revision was maintainable. Accordingly, the revisionist has come up before this Court in a writ petition challenging the propriety of the order dated the 13th May, 1963 passed by a Joint Director. 3. Shri R.K. Trivedi who appeared for the petitioner took a completely different line of argument maintaining that Sec. 47 of the U.P. Act VIII of 1963 could not at all apply to the instant case in so far as it concerned itself only with "all work in regard to or connected with consolidation operation" and not with any proceeding under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In support of his contention he referred to various provisions of the Act indicating that the Act made a distinction between the expression "consolidation operation" and the expression "proceedings". Accordingly, his argument is that since Sec. 47 of the Act VIII of 1963 does not at all apply to proceedings, the provisions of the amended Act must be taken to apply to the matters pertaining to such objections, appeals and revisions as are instituted subsequent to the Amendment Act coming into force. This argument is without any merits. Accordingly, his argument is that since Sec. 47 of the Act VIII of 1963 does not at all apply to proceedings, the provisions of the amended Act must be taken to apply to the matters pertaining to such objections, appeals and revisions as are instituted subsequent to the Amendment Act coming into force. This argument is without any merits. It may be that the Act makes a distinction between the expression "consolidation operation" and the expression "proceedings". That is of no consequence, because the material expression used in Sec. 47 (1) is not "consolidation operation" but is "all work in regard to or connected with consolidation operation." The expression "work" is wide enough to include not only the consolidation operation but also a proceeding, particularly, when it is used in conjunction with what follows it, namely, "in regard to or connected with consolidation operation". Moreover, the proviso to Sec. 47(1) also furnishes a clue to its interpretation, because there would be no occasion to provide for the exclusion of the second appeals and revisions in given circumstances from the purview of Sec. 47(1) by means of a proviso thereto unless Sec. 47(1) actually included the same within its ambit. I have thus no hesitation in rejecting the contention as devoid of all force. 4. No other contention not discussed in my judgment in writ petition No. 385 of 1963 was raised. 5. Therefore, for the reasons given in my judgment in the said writ petition, I would answer the questions in the following manner: - 1. A revision against the order of the Deputy Director dated the 23rd March, 1963 was maintainable and the order of the Joint Director dated the 13th May, 1963 depositing the revision is not legally correct. 2. Such a revision would be governed by unamended Sec. 48. By The Court - For the reasons stated in our judgments in Writ Petition No. 510 of 1963 decided today our answers to the questions referred to this Bench are as follows: - 1. Yes. The proviso to Sec. 47 (1) of Act No. 8 of 1963 did not apply because the second appeal was pending on 8-3-1963. Under Sec. 47 (1) (ii) of Act No. 8 of 1963 the proceeding under Sec. 12 was governed by the unamended Act. 2. By the unamended Sec. 48. The case should be laid before the Bench concerned with these answers. Under Sec. 47 (1) (ii) of Act No. 8 of 1963 the proceeding under Sec. 12 was governed by the unamended Act. 2. By the unamended Sec. 48. The case should be laid before the Bench concerned with these answers. order as to costs of this reference. Questions answered.