JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Aggrieved against order of remand passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While passing remand order the Deputy Director of Consolidation directed Settlement Officer Consolidation to afford opportunity to parties in respect of pedigree which was disclosed before him and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. 2. Before considering whether direction issued by Deputy Director of Consolidation can be sustained or not it has to be seen whether revisional authority has committed any error in remanding case while exercising jurisdiction u/s 48. From the order of the revising authority it appears Petitioner had disclosed pedigree during pendency of the revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation held that as no pedigree was disclosed before Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation except in the statement of opposite party it would be in the interest of justice that parties may be afforded an opportunity to lead evidence on the pedigree disclosed before him. It was further found by him that the witnesses examined on behalf of opposite party were rejected as they were of different caste. According to him the evidence of witnesses could not be discarded on this ground. 3. In recording both these findings the Deputy Director of Consolidation, in the circumstances of the case committed manifest error of law. It is not the disclosure of pedigree in plaint or objection but its narration in the statement, with source etc. which is material. When opposite party appeared he disclosed pedigree which is mentioned in the order of Consolidation Officer. The finding of Deputy Director of Consolidation therefore that no pedigree was disclosed appears to be erroneous. He should not have permitted opposite party to change the stand and set aside the order of consolidation authorities only because a different pedigree was set up presumably on a plain paper. The Deputy Director could have accepted additional evidence but in permitting opposite party to change pedigree and then without examining its authenticity Deputy Director of Consolidation committed an error in setting aside the finding on erroneous assumption that no pedigree was disclosed. It was not a case of accepting additional evidence but setting aside order just for an excuse. 4. Equally unsustainable is the other ground. It was not a case of accepting additional evidence but setting aside order just for an excuse. 4. Equally unsustainable is the other ground. Witnesses of opposite party were not discarded because they were Thakurs as has been attempted to be made out by revising authority. It was held by Consolidation Officer that for deciding dispute on pedigree it is the evidence of close relation or at least of witnesses of community which was relevant. But as parties were Kewat by caste and witnesses examined were Thakurs their statement could not be of much help on question of pedigree. To this hardly any exception can be taken. But here again the Deputy Director found an easy escape to set aside the orders of two consolidation authorities by observing it as matter of law that witnesses could not be discarded only because they were of different castes. 5. Learned Counsel for opposite party raised preliminary objection that this petition being directed against remand order was not maintainable. Reliance was placed on Uma Shanker v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1969 AWR 182. Recently in Ram Sewak Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, (1982) AWC 575 it has been held by Division Bench of this Court that writ petition is maintainable even against interlocutory order. The submission therefore that the petition is not maintainable is rejected. It was then urged that Deputy Director being court of fact his finding cannot be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction. If the Deputy Director of Consolidation in exercise of jurisdiction considered irrelevant evidence or approaches the case in a manner which is contrary to law then the order is liable to be quashed. It has been seen above that Deputy Director of Consolidation in setting aside the finding of Consolidation Officer and Setdement Officer Consolidation on pedigree committed a manifest error of law. 6. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. He is directed to decide the revision on merits in accordance with law. Parties shall bear their own costs.