JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of contesting respondents even though the case was taken up in the revised list, accordingly only the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner were heard. 2. This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 16.2.1974 passed by D.D.C. Ballia in Revision No. 97, Shiva Bachan and others v. Hardeo Pathak and others. The said revision was directed against order of C.O., Ballia dated 9.1.1973. Through the impugned order, revision was dismissed. 3. It appears that one Hardeo Pathak was recorded tenure-holder of the land in dispute comprised in Plot No. 624, area 0.76 acres. Petitioners alleged that Hardeo Pathak executed the sale deed of the land in dispute in their favour in the year 1960 (exact date of the same is not mentioned in the Para-4 of the writ petition). In the same para, it is also mentioned that sale deed was executed in favour of petitioners as well as one Sukhdeo. In Para-5 of the writ petition, it is stated that on the application of the petitioners, their names were mutated over the said land and in lieu thereof chak was also allotted to them. In Para-5, the date of order of mutation is not given. It appears that order of mutation in favour of the petitioners was passed on 30.11.1963. Contesting respondents, Jagdeo and others claimed that they had filed some objections and through order dated 14.5.1962, it was directed that their names should be recorded as co-tenure holder along with Hardeo Pathak. 4. Contesting respondents filed an application under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act on 17.8.1971 for correction of records. Their case was that as per order of A.C.O. dated 14.5.1962, their names should also be entered as co-sharer with Hardeo Pathak over the plot in dispute. C.O. decided the matter in favour of contesting respondents on 9.1.1973. It is mentioned in the order of the D.D.C. that the C.O. had passed the earlier order dated 14.5.1962 directing for entering the names of contesting respondents as co-sharers with Hardeo Pathak on the basis of compromise. 5. The plea of the petitioners that Hardeo Pathak had sold the property in dispute to them and another person before 14.5.1962 was not considered. If Hardeo Pathak had already sold the plot in dispute, he could not enter into compromise with contesting respondents. 5. The plea of the petitioners that Hardeo Pathak had sold the property in dispute to them and another person before 14.5.1962 was not considered. If Hardeo Pathak had already sold the plot in dispute, he could not enter into compromise with contesting respondents. Moreover contesting respondents were claiming the right on the basis of compromise and petitioners were claiming the right on the basis of sale deed. Accordingly, it was not a question of correction of any entry. It required thorough investigation. However, at this juncture it is necessary to state that quoting wrong provision in the title of an application is never fatal. 6. Contesting respondents did not give any explanation of their silence for nine years. This unduly long silence goes against them and gives lot of credence to the plea of the petitioners that the order of 1962 was in fact never passed and was subsequently inserted in the file. If in fact any such order had been passed, the the same should have been mutated or atleast contesting respondents would have immediately made efforts for mutation of the said order. 7. In any case even if it is assumed that such an order was passed, it was utterly without jurisdiction as after selling the property, Hardeo Pathak had absolutely no authority to enter into compromise in respect of the said property. By virtue of Section 18 of Evidence Act, an admission is admissible only if made during continuance of right. The contesting respondents never denied that in the year 1963, names of petitioners were mutated and chak was allotted to them. This subsequent order having not been directly challenged, there was absolutely no question of correction of record by deleting the entries in pursuance of the order of 1963 and correcting the entries in accordance with the order of 1962 even if passed. Last but not the least, this raging dispute could not be resolved under Section 42-A of U.P.C.H. Act as the said section only deals with correction of arithmetical or clerical errors in the orders or entries. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders passed by D.D.C. and S.O.C. are set aside and order passed by C.O. is restored. ————