JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No. 4 Ram Pratap Singh contesting respondent who has appeared through caveat at the admission stage. In the year 1988 respondent No. 4 Ram Pratap filed objections before Assistant Consolidation Officer Soraon, District Allahabad to the effect that agricultural land comprised in pot No. 34 total area 4 bigha 10 biswa in which late Sri Ram Nath (father of the petitioners) had half share was sold by him to objector Ram Pratap through registered sale-deed dated 30.7.1981 hence his name shall be entered in the revenue records as Bhoomidhar to the extent of half share in plot No. 34. Late Sri Ram Nath filed reply to the said objections copy of which is Annexure 2 stating that he had not executed any sale-deed and it appeared that some other person impersonated him and executed the sale-deed. In the said objections dated 29.3.1988 it was no where stated that Ram Pratap had taken some loan from him (Ram Nath). However, subsequently it was asserted that on 26.6.1981 Ram Pratap had taken loan of Rs. 8,500/- from Ram Nath photo copy of pronote was filed before the Consolidation authorities. They did not believe the same on the ground that original was not filed. Moreover no suit for recovery of the said amount was filed by Ram Nath against Ram Pratap. Consolidation authorities by no stretch of imagination can entertain claim with respect to unpaid loan and direct recovery of the same. 2. Expert evidence on the disputed signatures of late Sri Ram Nath on the sale-deed was also adduced. Late Sri Ram Nath adopted every sort of trick to delay the disposal of the case. Ultimately, C.O. Sahanso, Allahabad decided the objections (case No. 1030, Ram Pratap v. Ram Nath) through order dated 3.11.2000 holding the sale-deed to be valid and directing entry of the name of Ram Pratap over 50% share of late Sri Ram Nath in the agricultural land in dispute. Copy of the said order is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Against the said order appeal No. 1918 was filed by late Sri Ram Nath. Appeal was dismissed by S.O.C. through order dated 23.10.2003 copy of which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Copy of the said order is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Against the said order appeal No. 1918 was filed by late Sri Ram Nath. Appeal was dismissed by S.O.C. through order dated 23.10.2003 copy of which is Annexure 6 to the writ petition. During the pendency of appeal late Sri Ram Nath had filed an application for permission to adduce expert evidence on the disputed signatures. The said application had been rejected on 11.9.2003. Against orders of S.O.C. dated 11.9.2003 and 29.10.2003 two revisions were filed by late Sri Ram Nath numbered as revision No. 710 renumbered several times thereafter and revision No. 690 renumbered thereafter several times. D.D.C./A.D.M. Nazul, Allahabad dismissed both the revisions through order dated 13.7.2009 hence this writ petition. The revisional Court has mentioned that even though High Court had directed to decide the revision within specified time however late Sri Ram Nath filed several adjournment applications as well as transfer applications hence matter could not be decided within time. 3. I find two errors in the judgments of the Courts below : 4. The first is that respondent No. 4 Ram Pratap did not give any explanation as to why for 7 years he did not take any steps for entry of his name in the revenue records. The other is that the Courts below particularly revisional Court/D.D.C. held that late Sri Ram Nath had not filed any suit for cancellation of sale-deed before Civil Court (competent Court) even till the date when revision was heard and decided. It was further held that in case sale-deed had not been executed by Ram Nath he should have filed suit for its cancellation. 5. The case of late Sri Ram Nath was that he was not aware of the sale-deed and some imposter had executed the sale hence there was no question of his filing suit for cancellation of the same till objection/application was filed by respondent No. 4 before A.C.O. for entry of his name in the revenue records. On the allegation made by late Sri Ram Nath the sale-deed was void. For cancellation of such sale-deed consolidation Courts have got either exclusive jurisdiction or at least concurrent jurisdiction with the Civil Court vide Full Bench Autuority reported in Ram Padarath v. A.D.J.,1989 AWC 290. 6. On the allegation made by late Sri Ram Nath the sale-deed was void. For cancellation of such sale-deed consolidation Courts have got either exclusive jurisdiction or at least concurrent jurisdiction with the Civil Court vide Full Bench Autuority reported in Ram Padarath v. A.D.J.,1989 AWC 290. 6. However, in my opinion the above two errors in the impugned judgments do not warrant setting aside of the same. Even after holding that Ram Nath should have filed Civil suit for cancellation of the sale-deed the genuineness and validity of the sale-deed was thoroughly examined by all the three Courts below. Lower revisional Court/D.D.C. has mentioned that witnesses of late Sri Ram Nath only stated that they were not aware of the sale-deed. However, Radhe Shyam and Ram Kailash witnesses of respondent No. 4 stated that they were present at the time of execution of the sale-deed. Revisional Court also held that according to the expert opinion thumb impression on the disputed sale-deed tallied with admitted thumb impression of Ram Nath. It has also been mentioned that the relevant register had been summoned from the office of the registrar. It was brought by a clerk of the said office and the clerk also give his statement. It has also been mentioned in the impugned order that before C.O. also late Sri Ram Nath adopted delaying tactics and sought several adjournments and inspite of several opportunities did not adduce expert evidence. 7. It was also argued before the Courts below that application had been filed by Ram Nath for summoning the attesting witnesses of the sale-deed and favourable order had also been passed by the C.O. on the said application, however, that order was misplaced from the file and attesting witnesses were not summoned. The same thing has been stated in para 8 of the writ petition. Annexure 3 is the copy of application filed by Ram Nath. There is no allegation that Ram Nath offered to produce the attesting witnesses of sale-deed and the consolidation officer refused to take their evidence. 8. During pendency of revision Sri Ram Nath died and was substituted by the petitioners who are his sons. 9. The most important fact/circumstance against late Sri Ram Nath and thereafter his sons i.e. the petitioners was/is that one of the attesting witnesses of the sale-deed in question was petitioner No. 1 Sri Ram Lal himself. 8. During pendency of revision Sri Ram Nath died and was substituted by the petitioners who are his sons. 9. The most important fact/circumstance against late Sri Ram Nath and thereafter his sons i.e. the petitioners was/is that one of the attesting witnesses of the sale-deed in question was petitioner No. 1 Sri Ram Lal himself. All the Courts below rightly held that Sri Ram Nath should have produced his son Ram Lal (petitioner No. 1) to disprove the sale-deed which he did not do. Failure of petitioner No. 1 Ram Lal to give evidence before the C.O. against the sale-deed was fatal for Ram Nath and the petitioners. It conclusively proved that sale-deed in fact had been executed by late Sri Ram Nath. If a sale-deed contains the name of son of the executant as one of the attesting witnesses and the executant denies having executed any such sale-deed then it is most natural and utmost essential that said son should appear as witnesses to deny his and his father’s signatures on the sale-deed. 10. In view of the fact that Ram Lal petitioner No. 1 one of the attesting witnesses and son of the executant of the sale-deed did not appear to deny his and his fathers signatures on the sale-deed, impugned orders do not deserve to be set aside inspite of the errors found therein in the earlier part of this judgment. It is most important to mention that even in this writ petition it has no where been stated that Ram Lal petitioner No. 1 did not attest the sale-deed. 11. As far as the question of denial of additional opportunity to late Sri Ram Nath by the Appellate Court to adduce expert evidence is concerned several opportunities for the said purpose had already been granted by the C.O. which late Sri Ram Nath had not availed. Accordingly, it was not necessary to provide one more opportunity for adducing expert evidence. 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition hence it is dismissed. ————