Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.;— Notice on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Mr. Virendra Yadav, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party no. 3, the same is taken on record. 2. For the order proposed to be passed, I do not find it necessary to issue notice to the opposite party nos. 3 to 8. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Virendra Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3. 4. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.11.2011 by which the revision preferred against the interlocutory order dated 14.11.2011 in Appeal No. 1078/835/11-12 has been entertained and notices have been issued to the opposite parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, no revision would lie against the interlocutory order. 6. Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is quoted below: "48. Revision and reference.-(1) The Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order [other than interlocutory order] passed by such authority in the case of proceedings and may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case of proceedings as he thinks fit. (2) Powers under Sub-section (1) may exercised by the Director of Consolidation also on a reference under Sub-section (3). (3) Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under subsection (1).] [Explanation [(1)] - For the purposes of this section, Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officers, Assistant Consolidation Officers, Consolidator and Consolidation Lekhpals shall be subordinate to the Director of Consolidation.] [Explanation (2). For the purpose of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceedings, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect of finally disposing of such case or proceeding.]" 7. For the purpose of this section the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceedings, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect of finally disposing of such case or proceeding.]" 7. Mr. Virendra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 3 on the other hand submitted that the opposite parties had filed objections on the impleadment application preferred by the petitioner before the Settlement Officer Consolidation and without considering the objections, the Settlement Officer Consolidation had directed for impleadment of the petitioner in the appeal, which was not proper. 8. Be that as it may, this Court is of the view that the Revisional Court shall first decide the maintainability of the revision before proceeding any further in the matter. The petitioner would be at liberty to raise his objections regarding maintainability of the revision by filing objections before the Revisional Court. In case any such objections are filed, the opposite party no. 1 shall consider and decide the objections on merit by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and only thereafter proceed in the matter. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners will file objections within one week from today. In case any such objections are filed, the opposite party no. 1 shall consider the same as observed above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, expeditiously, say within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. 10. Till then, the parties to the case shall maintain status quo as is existing today. 11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. _