JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - The petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Deputy Director of consolidation. Gorakhpur, dated 22-5-1976 whereby the revision petition filed by the contesting opposite parties was allowed. 2. It is not necessary to give the facts giving rise to the present writ petition because the first two courts had negatived the claim of the contesting opposite parties on the basis of res judicata whereas the revisional court has held that the judgment of the civil court was without jurisdiction and it would not operate as res judicata and it has also given finding in favour of the contesting respondents on the question as to whether Bhaggal and Ghisiawan were sons of Lochai. According to the contesting opposite parties they were and according to the petitioner they were not sons of Lochai. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended before me that in the circumstances of the present case the judgment of the civil court would operate as res judicata on the question whether the father of the contesting opposite parties was son of Lochai or not According to him the first two courts took correct view and the lower appellate court has patently erred. 4. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has tried to support the impugned judgment. According to him in view of the rulings reported in 1967 R.D. 114 Bankey Singh v. Dharam Deo Singh and others; 1970 R.D. 216 Parsottam v. Narottam and others the revenue courts had jurisdiction to try the suit filed in the civil court, hence the finding given by the civil court on the question of parentage would not operate as final between the parties. 5. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties. I have also gone through the plaint of the civil court I think that it is necessary for the revisional court to re-examine the question of res judicata in the light of even the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties and the findings in the civil suit recorded by the civil court as well as the allegations in the plaint. A question arises where the Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. are not parties in the civil suit whether such a claim would at all be cognisable by the revenue court at this stage it is not proper for me to express the concluded opinion since I have a feeling that the revisional court has not examined the question of res judicata in proper way, I think it proper to quash the impugned judgment of the revisional court and ask the revisional court to re-examine the question of res judicata strictly in accordance with law. Any observation made by me in this judgment would not be treated as final between the parties. Both the parties will be free to substantiate their claims Rameshwar v. Ram Asrey, 1965 A.L.J.P. 677 in the light of the decided cases as well as the pleadings of the parties and evidence in the civil suit. 6. In the result the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 22-5-1976 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the question of res judicata strictly in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs.