ORDER K.N. Misra, J. - Ram Nain son of Ram Prasad was a tenure-holder of the land in dispute. During the consolidation operation chak was also carved out in his name. After confirmation of the statement of proposals and finalisation of the chak proceedings, Ram Nain is said to have died leaving behind his son Triloki and Mantorna wife of his second son Rajnath. It is said that Mantorna died subsequently and Triloki was the legal heir of Ram Nain. After death of Ram Nain mutation proceedings under section 12 were started at the instance of Triloki and Mantorna. It is said that Triloki's statement was also recorded in those proceedings and thereafter an order was passed in favour of Triloki and Mantorna on 20th August, 1973. Amaldaramad was made on C. H. Form 23 by the then consolidation Lekhpal, Iltiza Hussain, and C. H. Forms 41 and 45 were also prepared. The village was de-notified on 1-12-1977. Thereafter Triloki is said to have executed sale-deed in respect of his said land holding and the transferees also applied for mutation. It is said that the petitioners started threatening the transferees to dispossess them on the strength of some entries in revenue records in their favour, and therefore those records were got inspected and it was revealed that from the mutation file the original order dated 20th August, 1973, which was passed in favour of Triloki and Mantorna, was got removed and in its place an order in favour of the petitioners was placed which indicates that their names be mutated on the basis of alleged will executed by Ram Nain in their favour. 2. An application was moved by Triloki before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, for bringing to his notice said facts of forgery and manipulation in the record and apprising him that the order dated 20th August 1973 was passed in his favour and in favour of Smt. Mantorna. It was prayed that suitable action be taken in the matter and the error be corrected. 3. The Deputy Director, Consolidation after getting the entire matter scrutinised thoroughly held that as a matter of fact the Consolidation Officer had passed order of mutation dated 20th August 1973 in favour of Triloki and Smt. Mantorna and that order was got removed from the record. He obtained report of Consolidation Officer as well as of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Deputy Director, Consolidation after getting the entire matter scrutinised thoroughly held that as a matter of fact the Consolidation Officer had passed order of mutation dated 20th August 1973 in favour of Triloki and Smt. Mantorna and that order was got removed from the record. He obtained report of Consolidation Officer as well as of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. The Consolidation Officer submitted his report stating that the order which is on the record is a forged and fictitious order. The Assistant Settlement Officer has also in his report submitted likewise. Statement of the Lekhpal was also recorded. He stated that he had made Amaldaramad in favour of Trilaki and Smt. Mantorna. He has further deposed that looking to the original order on record in favour of Triloki and Smt. Mantorna he had made Amaldaramad on C. H. Form 23. 4. The Deputy Director, Consolidation came to the conclusion that the original mutation order dated 20th August 1971 passed by the Consolidation Officer was in favour of Triloki and Smt. Mantorna. It further found that the said order was got removed from the record and in its place a forged and fictitious order was placed in favour of the petitioners. A copy of the order has also been ordered to be sent to the District Magistrate for necessary action in the matter against the erring officials. 5. The Deputy Director, Consolidation repelled the arguments of the petitioner for remand of the case holding that they can, if so like, take proceedings in the regular title suit and the case cannot be remanded as it was decided in favour of Triloki and others and village has also been de-notified. 6. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R. N. Singh, vehemently urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation is without jurisdiction because after de-notification of the village under Section 52 of the C. H. Act the Deputy Director, Consolidation could not pass such an order. I am unable to agree with this contention. It is not disputed that after death of Ram Nain mutation proceedings under Section 12 was carried out and the same were disposed of by an order dated 20th August, 1973. I am unable to agree with this contention. It is not disputed that after death of Ram Nain mutation proceedings under Section 12 was carried out and the same were disposed of by an order dated 20th August, 1973. Triloki contended that the order of mutation was passed in his favour and in favour of Smt. Mantorna, whose names were also recorded in the relevant C. H. Form 23. It was further asserted that the original order was got removed from the file and a fictitious and forged order in favour of the petitioner was got placed on the record. Thus the relevant question which was to be decided by the Deputy Director, Consolidation was, whether the order dated 20th August 1973 was passed in favour of Triloki and Mantorna or it was passed in favour of the petitioner. 7. The Deputy Director, Consolidation after taking into consideration all the material facts came to the conclusion that the original mutation order was passed in favour of Triloki and Mantorna. 8. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation and I do not find any error has been committed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. It is quite clear that the original order of mutation was passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of Triloki and Mantorna. It has rightly been held that the order which is placed on record was not passed by the Consolidation Officer, who has submitted his report stating that it was not written by him. In these circumstances, I do not find that the Deputy Director, Consolidation has committed any error of jurisdiction in getting the record duly corrected and in getting the entries made in the revenue records in accordance with the order dated 20th August, 1973 which was passed in favour of Triloki and Smt. Mantorna. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the enquiry made by the Deputy Director, Consolidation was made behind the petitioner. I am unable to agree. The petitioner was given due hearing by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. The statement of the Lekhpal was recorded in these proceedings. The report was submitted by the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and against that the petitioner made submissions in support of his case. I am unable to agree. The petitioner was given due hearing by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. The statement of the Lekhpal was recorded in these proceedings. The report was submitted by the Consolidation Officer and Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, and against that the petitioner made submissions in support of his case. He had also `made submissions against that evidence before the Deputy Director, Consolidation which has been considered by him while arriving at a conclusion that the original mutation order, which was passed in favour of Triloki and Mantorna, was got removed from the file and a forged and fictitious order was placed in the file which is in favour of the petitioner. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the said submission. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the end urged that the Deputy Director, Consolidation should have remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the case afresh on merits. I am unable to agree. The original mutation order was passed by the Consolidation Officer in favour of Triloki and Smt. Mantorna. The petitioner got the original order removed from the file and placed the order in his favour as held by opposite party No. 1 do not find any error in that finding. When as per aforesaid finding the case stood decided in favour of Triloki and Smt. Mantorna, there appeared no occasion for remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer for decision afresh. Thus, the Deputy Director. Consolidation, in my opinion, committed no error in not remanding the case and has correctly observed that the petitioner, if so likes may file a title suit in respect of the land in question. 11. Learned counsel, however, contended that since the petitioner's title suit. if filed, might be held to be barred, in spite of the aforesaid observation by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, and as such in order to avoid controversy on that point it was desirable that the mutation case should have been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding it on merits. I am unable to agree with this contention as well. 12. I am unable to agree with this contention as well. 12. In the present case Ram Nain to whom the chak was allotted had died much after the confirmation of provisional consolidation scheme and as such the mutation order passed under Section 12 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act would not operate as a bar in filing of title suit by any other claimant to the property claiming either as the heir and successor of the tenure-holder or on the basis of a will allegedly executed by the deceased in his favour. Similar question came up for consideration in Tilak Ram v. Board of Revenue, 1982 Rev Dec 330 : 1982 All LJ 778, wherein. I have held that (at P. 782 of All LJ) : "It is well settled that when the cause of action for mutation arose after the finalisation and publication of the consolidation scheme under Section 23 of the Act, the order passed in the mutation proceedings by the consolidation authorities would not operate as res judicata nor the regular title suit would be barred under Section 49 of the Act on the ground that the claimant plaintiff had failed to claim mutation during consolidation operations. If the name of the tenure-holder continues in the records at the time of close of consolidation operations by notification made under Section 52 of the Act, and the legal heirs and successors of transferees had omitted to claim mutation in their names during consolidation operations, they would not be debarred from claiming right in regular title suit or in claiming mutation of Revenue Act. Section 49 of the Act would not operate as a bar to such a suit or application. Even if mutation has already taken place in the name of any claimant during consolidation operations, it would not debar another person from claiming right in the land in question after de-notification on the ground that he had omitted to claim mutation during consolidation proceedings. This will, however, hold good if cause of action for claiming mutation accrued after confirmation of consolidation scheme under section 23 of the Act. Then neither regular title suit nor mutation application would be barred under Section 49 of the Act. This will, however, hold good if cause of action for claiming mutation accrued after confirmation of consolidation scheme under section 23 of the Act. Then neither regular title suit nor mutation application would be barred under Section 49 of the Act. Such suit or application for mutation will also not be barred by the principles of res judicata on account of mutation order passed in favour of any person during consolidation operations." Thus, I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the remand was necessary because the title suit, to be filed by the petitioner, would be said to be barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act. As already stated above title suit filed by the petitioner would not be barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act nor by the principles of res judicata. 13. It is no doubt correct to say that if a valid mutation proclamation has been issued in a case prior to the passing of the mutation order, a stranger to the proceedings, being not a party to those proceedings, may not be able to approach the consolidation authorities for re-opening of the decided mutation case, but the mutation order, for that reason, will in no manner operate as a bar to the claimant's regular title suit in the court of competent jurisdiction after de-notification of the village and the suit would not be barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act or by res judicata. The order under Section 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, if passed on contest between the parties on merits, would have the force of res judicata but if it is not between the same parties, it will not operate as a res judicata. 14. If the judgment in mutation case u/s 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act is not inter parties or the one to which neither the plaintiff nor the defendant were the parties, it cannot be used in evidence. It would be inadmissible in evidence except' for the limited purpose of proving as to who were the parties and what was the order passed and properties which were subject matter of the case. It would be inadmissible in evidence except' for the limited purpose of proving as to who were the parties and what was the order passed and properties which were subject matter of the case. But so far as regards the truth of the matter decided the judgment would not be admissible in evidence against him who is a stranger to the case in which judgment is rendered. 15. In State of Bihar v. Radha Kishan Singh, AIR 1983 SC 684 on the question regarding admissibility and worth of a judgment which is not, inter partes, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering several relevant decisions observed that (Para 133): "The cumulative effect of the decision cited above on this point clearly is that under the Evidence Act a judgment which is not inter partes is inadmissible in evidence except for the limited purpose of proving as to who the parties were and what was the decree passed and the properties which were the subject matter of the suit. In these circumstances, therefore, it is not open to the plaintiffs respondents to derive any support from some of the judgments which they have filed in order to support their title and relationship in which neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants were parties. Indeed, if the judgments were used for the limited purpose mentioned above, they do not take us anywhere so as to prove the plaintiffs case." 16. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order passed u/s 12 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act which was not inter partes would neither operate as res judicata nor it would be taken to be a piece of substantive admissible evidence. The petitioner, therefore, can file title suit, which would neither be barred u/s 49 of Consolidation of Holdings Act as already observed above, nor it would be barred by principles of res judicata. Thus, the petitioner cannot be said to be remediless and so in that view of the matter as well no interference with the impugned order is called for by this court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 17. In the result, this writ petition being evoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.