SHITLA PRASAD SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the order dated 12. 11. 1981 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. . Mlrzapur, by which application for restoration was rejected. ( 3 ) ADMITTED facts are that a revision has been filed by the father of the petitioners which remain pending and it was dismissed in default on 19. 6. 1980. An application for recall was filed by the petitioners on 28. 6. 1980. The application is not on record. But from a perusal of the judgment, it is apparent that the grounds taken was that the revisionist (father of the petitioners) died in the first week of April, 1980. therefore, it was stated, that the order dismissing the revision In default was against a dead person and it should be recalled. A counter-affidavit was filed to the effect that the revisionist (father of the petitioners) died in February, 1980 and not in April, 1980. It was admitted fact of the parties that the revisionist (father of the petitioners) died somewhat in the year 1980 and the revision was dismissed in default on June 19, 1980. i. e. , prior to February, 1980 or April, 1980. So in view of the fact that on the date the revisionist (father of the petitioners) was not alive, therefore, the revision was dismissed against a dead person. Now the question remains as to whether the application filed by the petitioners was maintainable or not. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that when the revision was filed by the father of the petitioners and he died prior to June, 1980, the order passed against a dead person is nullity, therefore, the order should be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed counter- affidavit, has vehemently opposed the writ petition and has replied the argument advanced by Sri S. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that when revision was dismissed, it was open to the petitioners to have filed" application for substitution and setting aside the abatement and if no application was filed, the petitioners have no right to challenge the same. His further submission is that the revision has already been abated and no substitution application has been filed within the prescribed period and as such, the revision was not pending. His submission is that the petitioners have not appeared before the revlsional authority, they had not informed the Court regarding the death of their father. therefore, the application was not maintainable and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is nullity and it should be quashed exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. His further submission is that it was the duty of the petitioners to have informed the Court that his father has died and they should have applied for substitution. But with a view to linger on the matter they had adopted delaying tactic without applying for the substitution and abatement applications. In reply to the argument advanced by Sri Faujdar Ral, learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Pandey learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the fact that the father of the petitioners died earlier to the date of dismissal of the revision in default the order is apparently against a dead person, therefore, the application filed by the petitioner is/was maintainable and it should have been allowed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any averments in the writ petition in reply to the averments of the counter-affidavit that no substitution application was filed. His submission was that the substitution application was filed. ( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Mirzapur. As stated above, the admitted fact is that the revisionist (father of the petitioners) died prior to June 19, 1980 when the revision was dismissed in default. The revision was dismissed against a dead person and application was filed by the so-called heirs of the dead person and it has been dismissed. The question is as to whether any such application was maintainable for recall of the order without being any application for substitution of the heirs or not. The Consolidation of Holdings Act is a self exhaustive Act. Section 41 of the consolidation of Holdings Act says that provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U. P. Land revenue Act are applicable to the proceeding under the consolidation proceeding. The Consolidation of Holdings Act is a self exhaustive Act. Section 41 of the consolidation of Holdings Act says that provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U. P. Land revenue Act are applicable to the proceeding under the consolidation proceeding. Relevant provisions of Section 41 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act is quoted hereinbelow : "41. Application of U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.--Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of Chapters IX and X of the U. P. Land Revenue Act. 1901, shall apply to all proceedings including appeal and applications under this Act," ( 5 ) THE relevant provisions of Sections 200 and 201 of the Land Record Manual are quoted hereinbelow : "200. Hearing in absence of party.--Whenever any parry to such proceeding neglects to attend on the day specified in the summons or on any day to which the case may have been postponed, the Court may dismiss the case for default or may hear and determine In ex parte. " "201. No appeal from orders passed ex parte or by default.--No appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 200 ex parte or by default. " re-hearing on proof of good cause for non-appearance.--But in all such cases, if the party against whom judgment has been given appears either in person or by agent (if a plaintiff within fifteen days from the date of such order. and if defendant, within fifteen days after such order has been communicated to him. or after any process for enforcing the judgment has been executed or at any earlier period), and shows good cause for his non-appearance, and satisfies the officer making the order that there has been a failure of Justice, such officer may, upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as. he thinks proper, revive the case and alter or rescind the order according to the justice of the case. Order not to be altered without summons to adverse party.--Provided that no such order shall be reversed or altered. Without previously summoning the party in whose favour Judgment has been given to appear and be heard in support of it. he thinks proper, revive the case and alter or rescind the order according to the justice of the case. Order not to be altered without summons to adverse party.--Provided that no such order shall be reversed or altered. Without previously summoning the party in whose favour Judgment has been given to appear and be heard in support of it. " ( 6 ) A bare perusal of Section 200 shows that whenever any party to such proceeding neglects to attend on the day specified in the summons or on any day to which the case may have been postponed, the Court may dismiss the case for default or may hear and determine it ex parte. ( 7 ) SECTION 201 also shows that no appeal shall lie from an order passed under Section 200 ex parte or by default but in all such cases, if the party against whom judgment has been given appears either in person or by agent (if a plaintiff, within fifteen days from the date of such order, and if a defendant, within fifteen days after such order has been communicated to him, or after any process for enforcing the judgment has been executed or at any earlier period), and shows good cause for his non-appearance, and satisfies the officer making the order that there has been a failure of justice, such officer may. upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as he thinks proper, revive the case and alter or rescind the order according to the justice of the case. ( 8 ) IN view of Section 41 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and Sections 200 and 201, there cannot be any doubt that these two provisions are applicable as no appeal was maintainable. Only application under Section 201 was maintainable. Now the question is who can file the application. A perusal of Section 201 shows that the party can file the application. Admittedly a revision was filed by their father and after the death, they had not applied for substitution, therefore, they were not party in proceeding. Whether any application was maintainable, this point should have been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. But from the judgment it appears that this legal point has not been considered at all by the Deputy Director of consolidation. Whether any application was maintainable, this point should have been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. But from the judgment it appears that this legal point has not been considered at all by the Deputy Director of consolidation. From a perusal of the Judgment, it is apparent that the Deputy Director of consolidation has considered the fact regarding the death of the revisionist. He has considered the order sheet dated 16. 4. 1980. 14. 5. 1980 and 16. 6. 1980 and has presumed that the revisionist was present. He has further observed that the present petitioners have not given correct fact. I am of the view that the Deputy Director of Consolidation is not correct in making any observation that somebody appeared on 16. 4. 1980, 14. 5. 1980 and on 16,6. 1980. In view of the fact admitted to the respondents that the revisionist (father of the petitioners) died in February, 1980, therefore, this finding of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that the revisionist was present is against the admitted fact to the contesting respondent and if these facts are admitted that the revisionist died prior to 19. 6. 1980, then the order dated 19. 6. 1980. dismissing the revision in default Is against a dead person. It should have been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Act but as it has not been done I think it is a fit case to quash the order dated 2. 11. 1981 and direct the Deputy Director of Consolidation to restore the application for recall. To its original number keeping in view the provisions of law regarding Its maintainability. ( 9 ) 1, therefore, allow the writ petition, set aside the order dated 2. 11. 1981 and remand the case back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with a direction to restore the application for recall to its original number filed by the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law as well as in view of the observations made in the body of the judgment. Since the. matter is lingering on i hope and trust that the Deputy Director of Consolidation will look into the matter and decide the same at the earliest. .