JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria dated 28-3-74. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details it appears that the Petitioners had claimed bhumidhari right in the disputed plots on the basis of a sale deed executed by Ram Jee recorded tenure-holder. The contesting opposite parties appear to have claimed sirdari right in the disputed land on the basis of their continuous possession for more than statutory period. It also appears that the contesting opposite parties succeeded in obtaining a decree regarding the plots in their favour in the year 1969. For setting aside the decree Ram Jee as well as the petitioners applied, and the application of Ram Jee was rejected and that of the petitioners was allowed, and the decree in favour of the contesting opposite parties was set aside as against the petitioners. With this background the petitioners came before the consolidation courts with the claim of bhumi dhari right in the disputed land whereas the contesting opposite parties were claiming sirdari right in the disputed land on the basis of their continuous possession and ex-parte decree in their favour. 3. All the consolidation authorities have given judgments against the petitioners Aggrieved by judgments the petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends before me that the revisional court has patently erred in relying upon the so-called ex-parte decree in favour of the contesting opposite parties. 5. The second contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners' claim has been negatived on the ground that the sale deed was not proved. 6. The third contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the contesting opposite parties have been in possession according to the findings recorded by the appellate authority from 1370 F. yet their claim of sirdari rights has been erroneously recognised by the appellate authority and the revisional court. 7. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the revisional court rightly relied upon the ex-parte decree in favour of the contesting opposite parties. He has stressed that if the said deed was not proved as observed by the revisional court, the petitioners claim could not be recognised. 7. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that the revisional court rightly relied upon the ex-parte decree in favour of the contesting opposite parties. He has stressed that if the said deed was not proved as observed by the revisional court, the petitioners claim could not be recognised. The next submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite-parties is that on the materials on the record the finding of fact has been recorded that the contesting opposite parties have succeeded in establishing their sirdari right in the disputed land. Therefore, it has been seriously contended that the impugned judgment need not be interfered with. It has also been suggested that in case the ex-parte decree in favour of the contesting opposite parties is ultimately upheld or order abating the suit is recalled, the right of the contesting opposite parties should be safe-guarded. 8. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I nave gone through the impugned judgments. In my opinion the revision-court has misread the evidence on record and has wrongly observed that the ex parte decree against Ramjee would have effect upon the claim of the petitioners. The revisional court has also committed an error in throwing the claim of the petitioners on a technical plea that the sale deed was not proved in the case. Even if the sale deed was not proved, it was proper on the part of the revisional court to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to prove the sale deed in accordance with law. It is well known that the technical rules of the Indian Evidence Act do not apply to the case before the consolidation authorities. If there was any flaw in the evidence taking legal shape, it was proper on the part of the revisional court to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioners to remove that defect. Since the revisional court has not recorded categorical finding regarding adverse possession claimed by the contesting opposite parties, I think that the ends of justice demand that the judgment of the revisional court should be quashed and the case should be sent back to the revisional court to re-examine the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. Since the revisional court has not recorded categorical finding regarding adverse possession claimed by the contesting opposite parties, I think that the ends of justice demand that the judgment of the revisional court should be quashed and the case should be sent back to the revisional court to re-examine the claims of the parties strictly in accordance with law. There is enough material on record to demonstrate that by the order dated 15-7-71 the ex parte decree in favour of the contesting opposite parties stood set aside against the vendees petitioners. In this view of the matter the revisional court has patently erred in observing that the decree against Ramjee would have its effect on the claim of the petitioners. I am told that the decree in favour of the contesting opposite parties was much after the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners. This aspect of the matter deserves to be investigated by the revisional court. 9. In the facts and circumstances emerging in the present case it appears to me that when the ex parte decree was set aside and the petitioners were impleaded in the suit, the suit could be abated under the provisions of Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In this regard I have learnt that the parties are agitating before the revisional court, hence I do not express any concluded opinion on the question and leave the parties to seek their right strictly in accordance with law. 10. In view of the above discussions the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the revisional court dated 28-3-1974 contained in annexure 5 attached with the writ petition, is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to decide the claims of the parties in the light of the observations made above. There would be no order as to cost.