I. M. QUDDUSI, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B. R. Singh and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 4 Sri Ashok Verma. 2. This Writ Petition has been filed against the Order dated 25- 9-2000 by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Barabanki in Revision No. 1182 under Section (sic) UPZA & LR Act (Kamla Prasad Singh and others v. Triloki Singh) and Revision No. 1275, Triloki Singh v. Kamla Prasad Singh and others, which were filed against Order of Consolidation Of ficer dated 7-1-2000 which is interlocutory order which is passed in Appeal No. 2024 Triloki Singh v. Kamata Prasad Singh and others, which was area of A. C. O. in cases No. 2822, 2823 and 2824. 3. The Deputy Director of Consolida tion while setting aside the Order passed by Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 7-1-2000 and Assistant Consolida tion Officer dated 26-9-1989, directed the Consolidation Officer, Sadar to decide the case on merits after recording evidence and making the concerned file available. He has decided the revisions on merits although the appeal is still pending before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation ). 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that as the revisions were filed against interlocutory order of the S. O. C. which the S. O. C. had directed that preliminary objection and amendment ap plication and other points will be decided at the time of final disposal of appeal and it was ordered that the case shall be put up for hearing on 13-1-2000. 5. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that during the pen dency of appeal the Deputy Director of Consolidation should not have decided the case on merits more so when the revisions were filed against interlocutory order only. Sri Ashok Verma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has power even sue motu to decide the matter on merits under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and it has discretionary power which cannot be challenged in the Writ Petition. 6. Sri Ashok Verma, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has power even sue motu to decide the matter on merits under Section 48 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and it has discretionary power which cannot be challenged in the Writ Petition. 6. No doubt that the revisional powers of the Deputy Director of Con solidation are discretionary powers which is clear from the perusal of provisions of Section 48 of the Act which are as follows: (1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subor dinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality of the proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an oppor tunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under sub-section (1) maybe exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under sub-section (3 ). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after al lowing the parties concerned an oppor tunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1 ). 7. The point of consideration before this Court at present is whether was it proper for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the matter on merits when the appeal was pending before the S. O. C. and both the parties Le. petitioners and Triloki Singh, Op posite Party No. 4 respectively in the present Writ Petition, had filed revision against interlocutory order only. 8. Sri Ashok Verma placed reliance on the case law laid down by this Court in 1996 (87) RD 66, Mujeeb v. Dy. petitioners and Triloki Singh, Op posite Party No. 4 respectively in the present Writ Petition, had filed revision against interlocutory order only. 8. Sri Ashok Verma placed reliance on the case law laid down by this Court in 1996 (87) RD 66, Mujeeb v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, in which it has been held that no opportunity of hearing was necessary before passing the order by the Joint Director of Con solidation to expunge the order of Amal-daramad if he is satisfied that the order is a forged one but interest of adversely af fected person can be safeguarded by providing him an opportunity of hearing which will explain possibility of error which may raise due for want of an oppor tunity of hearing and that possibility will also stand rectified in maintenance of cor rect revenue entries and for said reason a forged order (sic) of hearing if necessary but a person adversely affected in cases where the entries are expunged or corrected in revenue and order of correct entries is posted without affording opportunity of hearing to person adversely affected. 9. No doubt this Court has held that the post order opportunity of hearing should be given to a person after expunging Amaldaramad but in the instant case the aggrieved filed an appeal before the SOC which expunging (sic) and a decision and in respect of the entries has been taken by ACO which is pending for disposal hence the case regarding the post-decisional would not be applicable in the instant matter. The revision were filed only against the interlocutory order of the SOC, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it was not proper on the part of DDC to interfere in the matter during the pendency of appeal. 10. In view of the above fact and cir cumstances the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. 11. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to S. O. C. to decide the Appeal within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Parties shall remain present before the S. O. C on 19th October, 2000. It will be open for the parties to produce evidence in the case they desire to do so. Parties shall remain present before the S. O. C on 19th October, 2000. It will be open for the parties to produce evidence in the case they desire to do so. It will also be open for the S. O. C. to give another date to the parties for this purpose or for hearing in any case, the appeal shall be decided within six weeks and not later than that, from the date of produc tion of certified copy of this order. 12. It is hereby made clear that in case any of the parties does not cooperate or seeks adjournment may be dealt with suitably but in any case the appeal shall be decided within specified period even in the absence of the parties. Petition allowed. .