JUDGMENT Honble Vikram Nath, J.—Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, holding brief of Sri Sankatha Rai, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri K.M. Singh, learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 2. With the consent of the Counsel for both sides this writ petition is being heard and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The dispute relates to Khata Nos. 168 and 171 of village Srinagar, Pargana Dwaba, Tehsil Bairiya, district Ballia as recorded in the basic year entries. In the basic year, Gauri Shankar Pandey/Respondent No. 2 and Barmeshwar were recorded as co-tenure holders. Petitioner, Smt. Dhanpati Devi filed an application claiming co-tenancy and also partition of her share. The Assistant Consolidation Officer referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer. Before Consolidation Officer, the parties led their evidence. Gauri Shankar/Respondent No. 2 claimed on the basis of un-registered will alleged to have been executed by Ram Ratan his fathers brother. The petitioner, Smt. Dhanpati Devi claimed to be the daughter of Ram Ratan. Sriman Narayan/Respondent No. 4 was also contesting the objections claiming to be fathers-fathers son of Ram Ratan. One Chandra Shekar also set-up the case on the basis of un-registered will deed. It is not in dispute that Chandra Shekar does not belong to family of Ram Niranjan Pandey, grand-father of Ram Ratan. In the evidence led before the Consolidation Officer, Gauri Shankar/Respondent No. 2 denied the fact that Dhanpati was daughter of Ram Ratan. It was also stated that the name of Gauri Shankar and Barmeshwar were recorded after the death of Ram Ratan. Smt. Dhanpati Devi also filed evidence, both oral and documentary to establish that she was daughter of Ram Ratan. Consolidation Officer in his judgement dated 13.11.2002 framed the following 5 issues : (i) Whether Dhanpati was co-tenure holder alongwith Gauri Shankar? (ii) Whether area of Plot No. 612 should be corrected to be 0.60 in place of 0.46? (iii) What was the share of the parties in the disputed khatas ? (iv) Whether Musammat Dhanpati, Gupteshwar, Sabah, Deena Nath, Richhdeo, Panch Dev, Satya Narain etc. were entitled to any right over plot No. 53 on the basis of possession? (v) Whether Shiv Gopal was entitled to any right over plot No. 54 on the basis of possession. 3. Issue Nos. (iv) Whether Musammat Dhanpati, Gupteshwar, Sabah, Deena Nath, Richhdeo, Panch Dev, Satya Narain etc. were entitled to any right over plot No. 53 on the basis of possession? (v) Whether Shiv Gopal was entitled to any right over plot No. 54 on the basis of possession. 3. Issue Nos. (iv) and (v) regarding any right on the basis of possession was decided in negative as no evidence was led in support of such claim. 4. While deciding issue Nos. (i) and (iii) the Consolidation Officer recorded following findings : Firstly, that Gauri Shankar had claimed on the basis of a will but he had utterly failed to prove the same as neither the copy of the original will was filed on record nor was it proved in accordance with law. In fact when the original will or its copy are not on record there could be no question of providing its execution or attestation. 5. While deciding issue No. (ii) the Consolidation Officer held that as the pedigree given by Smt. Dhanpati had not been disputed by Gauri Shankar, therefore, Smt. Dhanpati was indisputably the daughter of Ram Ratan. Further based on the first finding that Gauri Shankar had failed to prove the will in his favour, he directed for recording the name of Smt. Dhanpati as co-tenure holder having 1/4th share in the disputed Khatas. 6. Appeal was filed by Gauri Shankar before Settlement Officer Consolidation which was dismissed by order dated 12.6.2003, reiterating the findings of the Consolidation Officer. Gauri Shankar filed revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has recorded in his judgement dated 8-2-2007 that the objection of Gauri Shankar with regard to the fact that Smt. Dhanpati was not daughter of Ram Ratan son of Raghunath but was daughter of one Ram Ratan son of Krishna Kumar Pandey resident of Basdeela, District Chhapra and the evidence led in support thereof has not been considered by the Consolidation Officer or the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Both the said Courts have proceeded on the basis that as the pedigree submitted by Smt. Dhanpati was not disputed by Gauri Shankar, therefore, indisputably she was the daughter of Ram Ratan son of Raghu Nath. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further recorded that the Transfer Certificate of the School etc. Both the said Courts have proceeded on the basis that as the pedigree submitted by Smt. Dhanpati was not disputed by Gauri Shankar, therefore, indisputably she was the daughter of Ram Ratan son of Raghu Nath. The Deputy Director of Consolidation further recorded that the Transfer Certificate of the School etc. filed by Smt. Dhanpati in support of her claim which was disputed by the then Principal/Head Master of the School that he had not issued that Transfer Certificate has also not been considered by the Courts below. There are other facts referred to in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation which according to him, ought to have been addressed by the Courts below before recording a finding with regard to the parentage of Smt. Dhanpati Devi. The Deputy Director of Consolidation felt that Consolidation Officer had not framed proper issues involved in the matter and therefore, the parties had no opportunity to lead evidence and therefore remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer to frame additional issues, permitting the parties to lead additional evidence and thereafter decide the matter afresh. Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed by Smt. Dhanpati Devi. 7. Petitioner has annexed alongwith the writ petition objections filed before the Consolidation Officer, the evidence led before the Consolidation Officer, grounds of appeal, ground of revision as also all the three judgments, in addition to several other documents which for the time being are not necessary to be referred to. 8. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly is that the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer Consolidation had recorded the finding with regard to the parentage of Smt. Dhanpati after considering the material evidence on record and therefore there was no justification for remanding the matter. The second argument is that the issues framed by the Consolidation Officer fully covers the question as to whether Smt. Dhanpati Devi was daughter of Ram Ratan or not and therefore, there was no justification for Deputy Director of Consolidation to remand the matter and frame the issues. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kunju Kesavan v. MM Philip and others, AIR 1964 SC 164 . 9. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kunju Kesavan v. MM Philip and others, AIR 1964 SC 164 . 9. It was next submitted that the entire evidence was already on record and therefore, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have decided the matter on merits as it could have looked into the evidence on record and based on that could have recorded finding with regard to the parentage of Smt. Dhanpati Devi. It was also submitted that the observations by Deputy Director of Consolidation was un-called for with regard to no issue being framed on the will claimed by Gauri Shankar. He has also referred to the impleadment application filed by Chandra Shekhar and his filing of revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation which was said to be still pending. In support of his submission that where evidence is already on record the appellate Court ought not to have remanded the case but should have itself decided the matter, he has relied upon following decisions : (i) Sita Ram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 2007 RD 113. (ii) Rama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1975 Alld. 126 (FB). (iii) Bashir Ahmad v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1986 RD 164. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that at the revisional stage liberty for filing additional evidence could not have been allowed except only if the conditions laid down under Order 41 Rule 27. CPC were fulfilled. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Nath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 1997 ACJ 549 . On the other hand, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 submitted that the question as to whether Smt. Dhanpati Devi was daughter of Ram Ratan or not was specifically raised in the statement of Gauri Shankar and therefore, the finding recorded with regard to Smt. Dhanpati Devi being daughter of Ram Ratan by the Consolidation Officer on admitted facts is wholly incorrect and contrary to the record. In fact the observations of the Consolidation Officer amounted to misreading of the evidence. In fact the observations of the Consolidation Officer amounted to misreading of the evidence. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, neither the Consolidation Officer nor the Settlement Officer Consolidation considered the evidence on record with regard to the averment denying the fact that Smt. Dhanpati Devi was daughter of Ram Ratan and in cursory manner finding was recorded which completely vitiated both the judgements. Whereas the Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly allowed the revision and remanded the matter for deciding the said issue in particular as also other issues mentioned in the judgment. 11. With regard to framing of issues it has been submitted that no specific issues was framed with regard to the parentage of Smt. Dhanpati Devi and therefore, Respondent No. 2 did not have enough opportunity to lead evidence on such issues. However, with regard to the claim on the basis of will learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has failed to address the Court or place any substantial material or submission. 12. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties the first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the issue with regard to the parentage of Smt. Dhanpati Devi was within the knowledge of the parties or not ? If the said issue was within the knowledge of the parties then the parties were obliged to lead evidence on the same, and if they had failed to do so, such lacuna cannot be allowed to be fulfilled by permitting them to lead additional evidence. It is true that in the written statement filed by Gauri Shankar, the contesting respondent No. 2 had not specifically disputed the parentage of Smt. Dhanpati Devi but had raised this point in his statement and had also led evidence to that effect. Thus, the issue had been raised by Gauri Shankar, the contesting respondent No. 2. This is not only the case of Gauri Shankar, respondent No. 2 but has also been noted by Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order. Non-framing of such an issue, even though evidence had been led on that issue, cannot be said to be fatal nor can it be said to be a substantial illegality. The Consolidation Officer ought to have considered the evidence. 13. Non-framing of such an issue, even though evidence had been led on that issue, cannot be said to be fatal nor can it be said to be a substantial illegality. The Consolidation Officer ought to have considered the evidence. 13. The Deputy Director of Consolidation while exercising powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has vide powers and can also examine the evidence available on record and record a finding on any issue. In this view of the matter, one of the grounds taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for remanding the matter, of non-framing of issue cannot be said to be justified. The Apex Court in the case of Kunju Kesavan (supra) has clearly laid down that where the parties went to trial fully understanding the issue, the absence of an issue could not be held to have led to a mis-trial sufficient to vitiate the decision. Coming to the other ground taken by the Deputy Director of Consolidation for remanding the matter that no witness of the village was examined, it may be observed that it was for the parties to lead evidence in support of their claims and if they failed to lead evidence, the same cannot be permitted by allowing the parties to fill up lacuna in their evidence, in revisional jurisdiction. The matter ought to have been decided on the evidence available on record. If parties are permitted to fulfil the lacuna, it would become a never ending exercise and would result into long drawn litigation and harassment of one of the parties. 14. This Court in the case of Ram Nath (supra) held that if the parties had ample opportunity to produce evidence in the Court below, but failed to do so or opted not to do so cannot have such evidence admitted subsequently. The principles underlined in the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 27, CPC should be strictly adhered to while permitting additional evidence. In the present case full opportunity of leading evidence was given to the parties before the Consolidation Officer. It is not the case of any of the parties that they were deprived of any opportunity of leading evidence. The principles underlined in the provisions contained in Order 41 Rule 27, CPC should be strictly adhered to while permitting additional evidence. In the present case full opportunity of leading evidence was given to the parties before the Consolidation Officer. It is not the case of any of the parties that they were deprived of any opportunity of leading evidence. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation to that extent permitting the parties to lead additional evidence on the issue which has already been held to be not necessary for being framed would, therefore, stand vitiated. 15. Now coming to the question as to whether the evidence which was on record and had not been correctly or properly considered or appreciated by the Courts below, whether remand would be justified or whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation be directed to examine such evidence and record his own findings. 16. In the decision of Sita Ram (supra) as also Bashir Ahmad (supra) this Court has held that Deputy Director of Consolidation has ample power not only to look into the evidence on record but also to permit the parties to lead further evidence and to decide the matter on merits rather than remanding the same. In the present case as it has already been held above that it is not a case of leading further evidence, the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and the power to decide the revision on merits after taking into consideration the evidence on record. 17. The respondents have not raised any grievance that they wanted to file any further evidence and in fact their grievance was before the Courts below that the Courts below had not considered their evidence already on record. In this view of the matter the remand by the Deputy Director of Consolidation to the Consolidation Officer does not appear to be justified and the same cannot be sustained. However, as it has been recorded that the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation had misread the pleadings on record and had not considered the evidence led by the parties, it would be appropriate that the matter be remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine the material evidence on record and record his own findings on merits. 18. In view of the discussions made above the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 18. In view of the discussions made above the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 8-2-2007 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia for deciding the revision afresh in the light of the observations made above. 19. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ————