JUDGMENT : B.L. YADAV, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 20-3-1975 (Annexure 3 to the petition). By this order the restoration application of Respondent No. 4 Ram Pati was allowed and the order dated 5-4-1973 by which the reference was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation was recalled. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and they are these. In respect of Khata No. 12 there was a dispute about share between Respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7. In the basic year Khata No. 12 was recorded in the name of Kuber and Jaganoo, sons of Bbaggoo, Dal Singar, Ramsingar and Ram Chandra, sons of Ghurahoo. Kuber has died and Ram Pati, Respondent No. 4 is his son. An objection u/s 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act), was filed by Kuber alleging that the land was acquired by Bhagoo, the common ancestor of the parties, who has two wives, Smt. Sukhia and Smt. Chunnia. The latter was his first wife and Kuber and Purshottam were born from her, whereas from second wife Smt. Sukhia, Jagnu and Baiju were born. A complete pedegree has been given in para 3 of the petition. Bhaggoo, the common ancestor of the parties partitioned the property amongst his four sons during his life time. Smt. Sukhia has executed a gift deed in favour of Brij Bhushan, who acquired rights as donee, but the gift deed was denied by other co-sharers. The share of Dal Singar and Ram Chandra, sons of Qhurahoo was, however, not denied by any other co-sharer. 3. The Consolidation Officer by the order dated 24-1-1972 has rejected the claim of Rampati, Respondent No. 4 and maintained the shares of Dal Singar, Ram Chandra and Ram Singar. Rampati, Respondent No. 4 filed an appeal which was dismissed by an order dated 11-12-1972. The revision before Respondent No. 1 and also Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7656 of 1974 against the order In Revision met the same fate. In this way it is clear that the original dispute between the parties became final by judgment of this Court in the writ petition. 4. A reference was sought on the basis of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24-1-72 which became final in all respects. In this way it is clear that the original dispute between the parties became final by judgment of this Court in the writ petition. 4. A reference was sought on the basis of the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 24-1-72 which became final in all respects. The Assistant Settlement Officer has proposed a reference to the Consolidation Officer, who In his turn proposed the reference to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who referred It to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for being accepted in view of the provisions of Section 48(3) of the Act. That reference was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by the order dated 5-4-1973 and the 'adjustment chart as proposed was approved. Against the order dated 3-4-73 'accepting reference, Respondent No. 4 filed a restoration application alleging that he was not served, nor he was heard and hence the order may be recalled and the reference may be decided afresh on merits. By the order dated 20-3-75, the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the restoration application. This is the impugned order in the present petition. 5. Sri H.C. Kharbaada, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged that 12-7-72 was the date shown in the notice for appearance for the Respondent No. 4. On that date he (Respondent No. 4) appeared and put his signature on the order sheet and on the right side of the order sheet 30-3-73 was given 'as the next date for hearing. This fact is clear from the observation made in the impugned order itself filed as Annexure 3 to the petition (page 18 of the petition). But on 30-3-73 the reference could not be taken up for hearing, However, it was ultimately decided and the reference was accepted by an order dated 5-4-73. In the restoration application Respondent No. 4 alleged that he was not served on 12-7-72. He has made his signature on 12-7-72 on the order sheet under some bonafide mistake and he was given assurance that the other proceedings will be stayed. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did 'not record a finding as to how on 12-7-72 the Respondent No. 4 has put his signature on the order sheet and how the next date 30-3-73 was indicated to be the date fixed for hearing of the reference. The Deputy Director of Consolidation did 'not record a finding as to how on 12-7-72 the Respondent No. 4 has put his signature on the order sheet and how the next date 30-3-73 was indicated to be the date fixed for hearing of the reference. It is proved that the Respondent has put his signature or thumb impression on 12-7-72 on the order sheet, he came to know about the date fixed in the reference and there was no justification to restore the reference. Section 41 of the Act makes chapter IX and X of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 applicable to restoration matters in appeal and revision etc. Sri Kharbanda further urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not taken into account the proviso added to Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Allahabad High Court or in other words the 2nd proviso to Rule 13 of the Order 9 (added by Code of Criminal Procedure Amendment Act No. 104 of 1976) even though in terms the provision of Code of Criminal Procedure need not apply to consolidation proceedings. It was further urged that without recording a finding about good cause or sufficient cause, the order dated 5-4-73 cannot be set aside in view of Section 41 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand has urged that the impugned order was perfectly correct and under some bonafide mistake on 12-7-72 the signature was made by Respondent No. 4. But he was made to understand that further proceedings would be stayed and hence he could not appear and he was prevented to appear on 5-4-73 when the reference was taken up and decided. 7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, the first point that requires consideration is as to whether the restoration application filed by the contesting Respondents could have been allowed and whether there was any good cause for non appearance of the contesting Respondents on the date fixed for his appearance as required by Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, which has been made applicable by Section 41 of the Act. 8. 8. Unless it was proved as a fact that there was any good cause, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 5-4-73 cannot be recalled nor the restoration application can be allowed--See U.P. State Electricity Board v. Mahmood Hasan Khan 1977 AWC 528. 9. Further the amendment in Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Criminal Procedure by the Allahabad High Court has been considered and the said amendment has now been incorporated in proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 by 1976 amendment. Hence just on the ground of irregularity in the service of summons or notices that would have been sent to Respondent No. 4, the restoration order cannot be set aside unless it was proved that he was prevented by some sufficient cause from appearing on the date fixed. Even though the provisions of Proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Criminal Procedure may not be made applicable in terms to the consolidation proceedings, but the spirit of these provisions has been made applicable. 10. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has made observation in his order, that on 12-7-72 Rampati, Respondent No. 4 has made his signature on the order sheet and the other parties to the reference also made their signatures and 30-3-73 was the next dated fixed. It was thereafter alleged that the file was also taken up on 29-3-73, but ultimately it was decided on 4-4-73. In case Respondent No. 4 has put his signature on the order sheet dated 12-7-72, it was for him to appear on the next date fixed in his presence, i.e. 30-3-73. On 30-3-73 he could have appeared himself or sent a representative to look after the case. In the restoration application it appears that Respondent No. 4 alleged that since 1-4-73 till 30-4-73 he was out of station and had gone to Varanasi in connection with some treatment. Even assuming that this was so, in that event also it was the responsibility of Respondent No. 4 to have made arrangement for appearance on the date fixed on 5-4-73. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the restoration application with reference to the appearance of Respondent No. 4 on 12-7-72 or as to what was the compelling circumstances on account of which Respondent No. 4 could not appear on the date fixed, i.e. 5-4-73. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered the restoration application with reference to the appearance of Respondent No. 4 on 12-7-72 or as to what was the compelling circumstances on account of which Respondent No. 4 could not appear on the date fixed, i.e. 5-4-73. In case any party appears it becomes his responsibility to look after the case on other subsequent dates. Unless he was prevented by some sufficient cause from appearing on the subsequent date, it cannot be taken as a matter of right that he can appear on any date according to his convenience. In the instant case by the impugned order the right of the Petitioner, who is a vendee, is being affected. In case there would have been some dispute about the share of Ram Singar, the vendor, then there could have been some justification for the claim of Respondent No. 4. But in the instant case the vendors' right are protected and it was never in dispute. As on the date fixed, i.e. 12-7-72 Respondent No. 4 appeared, then on subsequent dates also it was his duty to appear or to send some representative to look after the case. 11. In view of the facts stated above, it is clear that there was no convincing explanation offered by Respondent No. 4 for his non-appearance on 5-4-73, the date on which reference was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation was accordingly not justified in allowing the restoration application by the impugned order dated 20-3-75. The impugned order accordingly cannot be sustained. 12. In view of what has been stated above, there was no justification at all to recall the order dated 5-4-73 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 13. The Writ Petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20-3-75 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure 3 to the petition) is hereby quashed. Under the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.