JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J.- This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gyanpur dated 18.11.1971. 2. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that a large number of documents was sought to be adduced before the revisional court, which has been erroneously refused in the circumstances of the present case. He has further contended that the petitioner's claim is based on adverse possession for more than statutory period, and he has emphasised that the petitioner had purchased the property of Smt. Annapurna Devi in the year 1927 and has continued in possession since then, yet his claim based on adverse possession has not at all been examined by the last court of fact. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the revisional court correctly did not accept the evidence adduced before it and that the petitioner's claim stands barred on the principles of res judicata hence substantial justice has been done between the parties and the impugned judgment should not be interfered with. 4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. 5 It is well known that the technicalities of the pleadings or procedure in adducing evidence is inapplicable to the consolidation proceedings. The rulings relied upon by the revisional court in the impugned judgment are inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The ends of justice demanded that the revisional court having wide powers should have accepted the evidence even at the last stage and should have examined the claims of the parties in accordance with law. Since the claims of the parties are decided for good in the consolidation proceedings, it has been indicated several times that the consolidation authorities should not adhere to the technicalities and should try the claims on merits. In the present case the revisional court has at least failed to examine the claim of the petitioner on a technical ground ; therefore, its judgment deserves to be quashed. In the present case the revisional court has at least failed to examine the claim of the petitioner on a technical ground ; therefore, its judgment deserves to be quashed. The revisional court should also examine the claim of the petitioner based on adverse possession and it would be open to tho contesting opposite parties to contest the claim of the petitioner on the principles of res judicata, if any and the revisional court would also admit the evidence on the question of res judicata, if filed by the contesting opposite parties. The revisional court shall also give reasonable opportunity to the parties to rebut the evidence filed by either party before it. 6. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 18.11.1981 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties in the light of the observations made above. There would be no order as to costs.