JUDGMENT R.P. Singh, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissing the revision and upholding the order passed by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) in proceedings under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were recorded in the basic year as tenure - holders of the plots in dispute against which an objection was filed by the contesting opposite parties claiming share in the plots in dispute on the allegations that the basic year entry showing the petitioners to be sole tenure - holders of the plots in dispute is incorrect. The Consolidation Officer after appraisal of evidence on record allowed the objection filed by the contesting opposite parties vide his order dated 17-2-88 allotting 1/4 share to the petitioners while the contesting respondents were given the remaining share. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) accompanied by an application for staying the operation of the order passed by Consolidation Officer. The appeal is still pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) but the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) however, rejected the stay application filed by the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners went up in revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who also dismissed the same. The petitioners have now preferred the present writ petition before this Court. 3. Head learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since undisputedly the strike of the staff was still continuing on 17th February 1988 and hence the petitioners remained under the impression that due to the continuing strike the courts will not function and under that impression the petitioners did not have proper opportunity to put their case before the Consolidation Officer. It is also submitted that large number of other cases were adjourned and next dates were fixed on account of the continuing strike of the staff. 5. It is also submitted that large number of other cases were adjourned and next dates were fixed on account of the continuing strike of the staff. 5. Since the matter is still pending in appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) who has still to decide the appeal on merits, the Settlement, Officer (Consolidation) while deciding the appeal will go into the contention of the petitioners whether the petitioners had ample opportunity to argue the case before the Consolidation Officer or whether they did not get proper opportunity to represent their case before the Consolidation Officer on account of the continuing strike of the staff. Since the appeal is still pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) since March 1988, I direct that the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) shall decide the appeal expeditiously if possible, within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. Since the appeal is pending before him it would be appropriate that the status quo regarding possession may be maintained and if the petitioners have not already been dispossessed from the disputed plots the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) may direct that the status quo regarding possession may be maintained during the pendency of the appeal before him. 6. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.