S. K. SINGH, J. Heard Sri S. S. Mishra, learned Advocate in support of this writ petition and Sri Rai, learned Advocate who appeared for the respondents. 2. Challenge in this petition is the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by which revision filed by the respondent has been allowed and matter has been remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision after giving opportunity of evidence to both sides. 3. At the very outset when the arguments started Sri Rai, learned Advocate being very fair to the petitioner, to the Court and to the litigation submitted that on the facts his client is not to file any response and if the matter is decided by noticing of the argument by giving appropriate direction to the Deputy Director of Consolidation then that may be in the ends of justice. 4. In view of the aforesaid, this Court need not to notice the facts in detail and on brief notice writ petition can be conveniently decided. 5. In respect to the land in dispute a question was before the Consolidation Officer that whether it is to be valued or it is to be kept out of consolidation. Admittedly both sides have participated in the proceedings before the Consolidation Officer. The first Court kept land out of consolidation upon which respondent side filed appeal which was dismissed. A finding was recorded that on the facts and in view of the spot situation the land was required to be kept out of consolidation and therefore, that was rightly done by the Consolidation Officer. Deputy Director of Consolidation got fresh report from the consolidator and he found that there is slight variation about position on spot and thus by giving his own reason remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer for fresh decision after permitting the parties to lead evidence. 6. On the facts, this Court is of the view that order of remand is to be resorted in very exceptional cases/circumstances as that consumes precious time of the Court and that cause monitory loss to both sides besides unwarranted harassment. Remand is to be made only when there is need for that meaning thereby order is ex-parte, some party was deprived of leading evidence or there is some inherent lacuna in the process. Remand is to be made only when there is need for that meaning thereby order is ex-parte, some party was deprived of leading evidence or there is some inherent lacuna in the process. Both sides were party before the 1st Court and there is no complaint about lack of opportunity and thus what ever evidence was available, matter was to be finally decided. 7. Here is the case where besides participation of both sides before both Courts; Deputy Director of Consolidation got fresh evidence also and therefore, whatever material was available before the Deputy Director of Consolidation while deciding revision, he was required to decide the revision on merits finally taking a final view either way. Revision was required to be allowed or dismissed, that was within the power/discretion of the revising authority. On the facts, this Court is of the view that remand is to cause harassment to both sides and order to lead fresh evidence by the parties may amount to fill up the lacuna, if any, in the case of any side. 8. Thus, this Court is not to approve the order of remand, and therefore, intervention is required with the direction to the Revisional Court to decide the revision in accordance with law finally in the light of the evidence which were already available and whatever was collected by him and opportunity of hearing is to be given to both sides before taking fresh decision. 9. For the reasons given above, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Revisional Court is hereby quashed. Revisional Court is directed to revive the revision and to decide the same, in accordance with law, as directed above, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order from either of the sides. 10. However, on the facts, it is further observed that till disposal of revision parties will maintain status quo in respect to nature and possession over the land in dispute, as exists today. Petition Allowed, .