JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, dated April 23, 1979. 2. The main question involved in the writ petition is as to whether the opposite party No. 2 Mst. Hanarani alias Hansraji had remarried. The revisional court has allowed the revision and sent the case back for reconsideration. 3. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revisional court has patently erred in remanding the case and in making a direction that strong evidence should be given with regard to remarriage. The trial court had not accepted the question of remarriage in the light of the evidence on record whereas the lower appellate court accepted the same and if the revisional court was criticising the appraisal of the evidence by the appellate authority it was the duty of the revisional court to have decided the case itself rather than to send it back. In any view the revisional court has acted illegally in giving fresh opportunity to fill in the lacuna. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the present writ petition is not maintainable being against the order of remand, and secondly he has contended that the revisional court has given a direction for the benefit of the petitioners and the petitioners could not be permitted to make any legitimate grievance in that regard, 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is not quite correct to contend that no writ lies against the order of remand. In a later decision of this court it has been held that the order of remand cannot be challenged before any authority except before the higher authority. The incorrectness and impropriety of the order of remand cannot be gone into either by the authority of coordinate jurisdiction or of subordinate jurisdiction. In the present case the order of remand has completely disposed of the revision petition before the revisional court hence I think that the writ petition does lie against the order of remand. 6. I feel that the revisional court has unnecessarily remanded the case. On the materials on record, the revisional court should have decided the claim of the parties. 6. I feel that the revisional court has unnecessarily remanded the case. On the materials on record, the revisional court should have decided the claim of the parties. In case of necessity of additional evidence the revisional court has ample power to admit additional evidence and give opportunity to the parties in respect thereof and the revision court could decide the claim of the parties on merits. In the circumstances of the instant case the revisional court has acted illegally in remanding the case and giving fresh opportunities to the parties to fill in the lacuna. To my mind, the revisional court has shirked from its duty in not dealing with the claims of the parties on merits. It is proper that the judgment of the revisional court should be quashed and the revisional court should be asked to decide the claims of the parties in the light of their pleadings and evidence on record. In case of necessity it would be open to the revisional court to permit the parties to lead evidence before it and it should decide their claims by itself so that the litigation may be cut short. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated April 23, 1979 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to decide the claims of the parties on merits, in the light of the observations made above. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.