JUDGMENT R.S. Singh, J. - This writ Petition is directed against the order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation dated 10-4-1980 dismissing the revision of the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that Raghunath Singh was the chak holder, who died before the notification under Section 52 U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act. In a proceeding under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, an application was moved on behalf of the petitioner claiming to be heir of Raghunath Singh, deceased on the basis of the pedigree (Kursinama). Another objection was filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 claiming to be heir on the basis of the fact that he is sister's son of Raghunath Singh-Respondent No. 1 also filed objection claiming to be heir of Raghunath Singh colateral, issues were framed and witnesses were examined. On 4.9.1979, an amendment application was moved on behalf of the petitioner that in his objection, by clerical mistake the word Kursinama has been mentioned instead of Vasiatnama. This amendment application was opposed by the contesting respondents. The Consolidation Officer rejected the amendment application. The petitioner filed a revision against the order of the Consolidation Officer, which was also dismissed by the Dy. Director of Consolidation. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders before this court. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Raghunath Singh had executed a will in favour of the petitioner on 23-4-1974. The petitioner is a heir of Raghunath Singh and he claimed to be heir on the basis of the will but by clerical mistake in his objection, the word kursinama was written in place of Vasiatnama. Therefore, in such a circumstance, the amendment application moved by the petitioner should have been allowed and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have illegally rejected the amendment application. 4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the case of will now being set up by the petitioner is an after thought. It was never the petitioners claim that he is heir on the basis of will. He never pressed any issue on this point, nor the witnesses were cross-examined. Therefore the Dy. Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the amendment application. 5. I have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. It was never the petitioners claim that he is heir on the basis of will. He never pressed any issue on this point, nor the witnesses were cross-examined. Therefore the Dy. Director of Consolidation has rightly rejected the amendment application. 5. I have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. One thing appears from the order of the Consolidation Officer annexed as Annexure 2 that Vasiatnama was filed on 17-8-1977 and after 2 years the amendment application was moved i.e. on 4-9-1979. Annexure 2 is uncertified copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer dared 30-10-1979. The learned counsel for the respondents challenged the correctness of this order and has placed before me a certified copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 30-10-1979 wherein it has been observed that while the evidence of the other side was going on, no question regarding the will was asked from any of the witnesses in cross-examination. The will was kept concealed till the witnesses were examined and after the close of the oral evidence copy of the will has been produced in this case. 6. In these circumstance, it was held by the Consolidation Officer as well as by the Dy. Director of Consolidation that it was a belated attempt on the part of the petitioner to introduce a new case, which was not taken up at the initial stage. Therefore it is not a mistake of clerical nature but in case the amendment is allowed the very basis of the claim of the petitioner will be altogether changed and for the purpose fresh evidence have to be taken. In these circumstances, the Dy. Director of Consolidation rejected the amendment application. Therefore, there appears to be no error in the judgment of the Dy. Director of Consolidation and the view taken by the Dy. Director of Consolidation does not suffer from any defect which may justify interference in the writ jurisdiction. 7. I find no force in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.