JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14.08.1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in a revision u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act). The plot in dispute was 616 area 10 bight 1 beeswax and Basher Ahmad, Petitioner No. 1 was recorded as Sridhar over a portion of the same in the basic year. 2. An objection u/s 9A(2) of the Act was filed by Respondent No. 3 to 7 alleging that they were vendees from the Hussein Medic and the sale deed was executed in 1935 and after the date of vesting they became Chemiphar and may be entered as such in the revenue papers. The Petitioners on the other hand contested the case of the Respondents alleging that the sale deed of 1935 was never given effect to in the revenue papers and that the vendor Hussein Medic has no right to execute the sale deed with respect to Mohall Sharifunnisa in which the disputed plot was situated. 3. The Consolidation Officer decided the case in favor of the Petitioners by his order dated 24.04.73. The appeal of the contesting Respondents was dismissed by order dated 02.11.73 whereas the revision has been allowed by the impugned order dated 14.08.74 and the case has been remanded to Consolidation Officer for deciding the same afresh. 4. Sri S.N. Singh appearing for the Petitioners urged that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has discussed the entire evidence on record and ultimately he remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer and failed to decide the revision himself when the entire evidence was before him. It was urged accordingly that the order of remand was manifestly erroneous. He placed reliance on Asharfi Lai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1976 RD 179, Damodar Prasad v. Rumal 1966 AWR 195 , Nedunuri Kameswaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884 and Indian Army and Police Equipment Factory v. Kanodia Brothers 1968 SC Note. 489. It was urged accordingly that the order of remand was manifestly erroneous. He placed reliance on Asharfi Lai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 1976 RD 179, Damodar Prasad v. Rumal 1966 AWR 195 , Nedunuri Kameswaramma Vs. Sampati Subba Rao, AIR 1963 SC 884 and Indian Army and Police Equipment Factory v. Kanodia Brothers 1968 SC Note. 489. Sri Samantha Rai appearing for the contesting Respondents on the other hand urged that the order of remand was perfectly just and proper in the circumstances of the case and that instead of deciding the revision himself he has correctly remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer and that no case has been made out for interference Under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners are not without substance. In this case the moot point for consideration is as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation was justified in making leman to the Consolidation Officer when the entire evidence was before him and when he was seized up with the matter. 6. In Asharfi Lai v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Hari Swaroop, J. as follows: Unless the impugned order was found to be erroneous the appeal cannot be allowed and the case cannot be remanded. It was incumbent upon the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the matter himself on the basis of evidence on record. In case he found that the evidence was not sufficient and it was necessary to get further evidence he could have taken further evidence and decided the matter. In case he thought that it would be better to get a finding of fact on the question which he thought arose in the case he could have remitted the issue to the settlement Officer (Consolidation) for taking evidence or issuing commission or making spot inspection and recording his findings. He could have then decided the revision taking into consideration the evidence and the finding. In any case, he could not have remanded the case without applying his mind to relevant considerations. 7. He could have then decided the revision taking into consideration the evidence and the finding. In any case, he could not have remanded the case without applying his mind to relevant considerations. 7. In Damodar Prasad v. Rumple (supra), it was held under the scope of Order 41 Rule 23 CPC that the order of remand cannot be made solely on the ground that some evidence has not been considered. 8. Nedunuri Kameshwaramma v. Sampati Subba Rao (supra), was a case about the absence of an issue and it was held by the Supreme Court that where the parties went to trial fully knowing the rival case and led all the evidence even there might not have been an issue framed on the point, it would not vitiate the proceedings. Similarly Indian Army and Police Equipment Factory v. Kanodia Brothers (supra), was a case Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC and it was held in that case that the first appeal was in fact re-hearing and if the parties have led all the evidence they desired, it is the duty of the first appellate court to give its own conclusion. If the trial court does not primarily appreciate pleadings of the party and does not decide according to evidence, it is in that event for the appellate court to reverse the findings and give its own findings and the remand in these circumstances is not justified. 9. In fact Order 41 Rule 23 CPC in terms does not apply to the consolidation proceedings. Otherwise also the case is not covered even by the principles of Order 41 Rule 23. The Deputy Director of Consolidation can take additional evidence if any party wants to Lead. The condition imposed by Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has not to be fulfilled before additional evidence could be accepted or permitted to be led. I am of the view that the entire evidence was led by the parties and that was discussed and it was for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have decided the case on merits. The condition imposed by Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has not to be fulfilled before additional evidence could be accepted or permitted to be led. I am of the view that the entire evidence was led by the parties and that was discussed and it was for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have decided the case on merits. In case an y of the parties wanted to lead further evidence it was open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have permitted the parties to lead further evidence and in case some other evidence was required he should have remitted the issue and the findings could have been given by the subordinate court to that issue alone and thereafter that issue could have been considered and the same could have been taken into consideration by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The order of remand therefore, was not justified by the Deputy Director of Consolidation who was exercising a very comprehensive power u/s 48 of the Act. 10. One more aspect of the case is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has directed that the Gaon Sabha and the State of U.P. may be made parties. It is open to the Deputy Director of Consolidation himself to direct the contesting Respondents to impale the State Government and the Gaon Sabha as parties to the revision and they should have been given notice so that the State Government and the Gaon Sabha could be heard and also could lead evidence in support of their own case. Thereafter the revision could have been decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on merits after hearing the parties. 11. In view of the discussions made herein-before, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 12. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 14.08.74 is hereby quashed and the Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to decide the revision afresh according to law and in the light of observations made above after permitting the revisionist to impaled the State Government and the Gaon Sabha and after serving them and permitting them to lead evidence if they so desire. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.