Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against a part of the order dated 16-11-1984 passed by the Joint Director Consolidation as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application. 2. In view of the orders proposed to. be passed, it is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in great details. 3. The petitioner filed an objection under Sec.10 of the Bihar consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) in respect of two plots before the Consolidation Officer. 4. The petititioner, thereafter, filed two applications, one for amend ment at the said objection petition with a prayer that he be permitted to put his signature on the said application and in the second application he made prayer that eight other plots of land be directed to be included in the original application. 5. According to the contesting respondents, the Consolidation Officer allowed the first application for amendment but did not pass any specific order with regard to the second one. 6. Despite the same, the Consolidation Officer made enquiries in respect of the ten plots and passed orders on 3-7-1982 in favour of the petitioner which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. 7. The respondents preferred an appeal against the said order dated 3-7-1982 passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Appellate Authority admittedly remitted the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for a fresh decision in accordance with law. 8. After remand, the respondents filed an application that parties be heard with regard to the second application for amendment, as according to them, the said application for amendment was not maintainable. 9. The Consolidation Officer by reason of an order dated 5-9-1984 as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application rejected the said prayer inter alia holding that the respondents intended to delay the proceeding of the case. 10. Against the aforementioned order dated 5-9-1984 passed by the consolidation Officer as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, a revision application was filed by the respondents in terms of Sec.35 of the said Act. 11. By reason of the impugned order dated 16-11-1984 as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application, the Joint Director, Consolidation held that the Consolidation Officer could not have allowed the application for amendment filed on behalf of the petitioner. 11. By reason of the impugned order dated 16-11-1984 as contained in Annexure 8 to the writ application, the Joint Director, Consolidation held that the Consolidation Officer could not have allowed the application for amendment filed on behalf of the petitioner. In his order dated 16-11-1984 the Revisional Authority, however, directed the Consolidation officer to proceed with the objection filed by the petitioners in terms of directions given by the Appellate Authority. 12. Mr, Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned counsel submitted that as the order allowing the application for amendment of the objection filed by the petitioner under Sec.10 (2) of the said Act was not the subject matter of appellate the instance of the respondents, the Joint Director, Consolidation must be held to have misdirected himself in so far as he purported to have set aside the order despite the fact that he directed that the matter be enquired into in terms of the orders of remand passed by the Appellate Authority. 13. Respondents on the other hand, submitted that the second application for amendment filed by the petitioner was not maintainable in law as the same had been filed after a period of six years, although for filing such petition, a period of limitation of 30 days only has been prescribed. 14. In view of the fact that the respondents themselves have taken a categorical stand that no order was passed by the Consolidation Officer on the second application for amendment filed by the petitioner, in my opinion, the Joint Director, Consolidation Committee a grave illegality in going into merits on application for amendment of the petitioner. 15. By reason of the order dated 5-9-1984 as contained in Annexure-6 to the application, the Consolidation officer merely rejected the petition filed by the respondents to bear them on the application for amendment. 16. The Joint Director, Consolidation, while exercising his revisional power could not have, thus, interfered with it and could only direct that the application for amendment should be disposed of by the Consolidation officer in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 17. 16. The Joint Director, Consolidation, while exercising his revisional power could not have, thus, interfered with it and could only direct that the application for amendment should be disposed of by the Consolidation officer in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. 17. The Joint Director, Consolidation, could not have exercised any original jurisdiction to consider the merit of the application for amendment of objection petition filed by the petitioner a as even, according to the respondents, the said application for amendment had not been disposed of by the C onsolidation Officer on merits. 18. It is now well known that even a Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an application for amendment. Such an authority to grant leave to a party to amend his pleading can be exercised Inter alia to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. 19. It, however, may be mentioned that such an application for amendment should be disposed of by the Court of a Tribunal on its own merits. 20. There can not be any doubt that respondents were also entitled to be heard before an application for amendment was allowed. As no express order was passed by the Consolidation officer allowing the application for amendment, he should have passed an order after hearing both the parties. 21. In this situation, the impugned order dated 16-11-1984 as contained in annexure-8 to the writ application is set aside with a direction to the consolidation Officer to dispose of the petition of the petitioner on its own merits in terms of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority. 22. However, before point so, the Consolidation Officer would give opportunities to both the parties to be heard on the application for second amendment filed by the petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 23. However, it goes without saying that the Consolidation officer shall proceed to adjudicate the list between the parties after passing an order for amendment petition filed by the petitioner. 24. The application is allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore and subject to the aforementioned directions and observations. 25. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.