JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri S.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Chandra Misra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1. 2. This petition arises out of a dispute of title relating to succession as being claimed by the petitioner and the contesting respondents through two competing wills said to have been executed by Late Jamuna in favour of the petitioner and by Late Jogiya wife of Late Jamuna, in favour of the contesting respondents. 3. The respondents are the successors of the daughter of Late Jamuna whereas the petitioners belong to the branch of male lineal descendants of Jamuna. The pedigree which is in dispute is contained in the appellate order dated 23.11.2009. 4. The orders were passed on the objections filed on 27.4.1996 in favour of respondents and their objections were allowed. The petitioners filed a restoration application on 17.5.1996. It is the said restoration, which has given rise to the present controversy. 5. During the pendency of the restoration application one of the parties died and a substitution application was filed after considerable delay. The respondents filed an appeal arising out of the said substitution matter, which was dismissed. 6. The petitioners during the pendency of the said restoration also preferred a time barred appeal against the order dated 27.4.1996. The appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and directed the parties to appear before the Consolidation Officer for hearing afresh. Against the said order, the respondents preferred a revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has allowed the same and has set aside the remand order passed by the appellate authority. 7. Sri Tripathi submits that the petitioner had a choice of either to file a restoration or an appeal, inasmuch as, both are statutory remedies. The cause for filing the time barred appeal arose when the respondents started contesting the substitution matter in the restoration application. 8. The appellate authority condoned the delay and thereafter entertained the appeal and passed the order. He, therefore, submits that this exercise of discretion by the appellate authority was well within jurisdiction and the petitioners were well within their rights to file the appeal. They cannot be denied their right to file an appeal merely because they have remedy of filing a restoration. He, therefore, submits that this exercise of discretion by the appellate authority was well within jurisdiction and the petitioners were well within their rights to file the appeal. They cannot be denied their right to file an appeal merely because they have remedy of filing a restoration. They, therefore, submit that the findings on that issue by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is erroneous. 9. Sri Misra on the other hand contends that the direction given to the Consolidation Officer for hearing the restoration application is justified, and so long as the restoration application filed by the petitioners on 17.5.1996 is not allowed, they have no existing right, and even otherwise they could not have pursued another remedy by filing an appeal. He, therefore, contends that the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Consolidation do not suffer from any infirmity. Sri Misra submits that he does not propose to file any counter-affidavit as the issue being legal can be resolved on the basis of the present record. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions raised, the right of the petitioners to file a restoration and to file an appeal co-exist as they are statutory rights, which cannot be denied. It is, however, trite law that parties should not be allowed to contest the matter in parallel proceedings for the same cause of action. 11. In the present case the petitioners filed an appeal when their substitution in the restoration matter was being resisted. In such a situation it cannot be said that the petitioner had willfully or deliberately adopted another remedy which could have been done keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances. 12. Not only this, this Court is satisfied that the restoration which was filed on 17.5.1996 was well within time and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to either of the parties, even if the restoration is allowed and the matter is heard again by the Consolidation Officer. 13. Accordingly, in order to resolve the entire dispute between the parties and to avoid any further delay in the decision of the dispute between the contesting respondents and the petitioner, and prevent any further unnecessary legal gymnastics the writ petition is allowed. 13. Accordingly, in order to resolve the entire dispute between the parties and to avoid any further delay in the decision of the dispute between the contesting respondents and the petitioner, and prevent any further unnecessary legal gymnastics the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29.10.22011 and that of the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 25.11.2009 as well as the order passed by the Consolidation Officer dated 27.4.1996 are all setside. 14. The restoration application dated 17.5.1996 discloses sufficient cause and therefore, the same is hereby allowed. The objection shall stand restored at the stage of the Consolidation Officer. The parties shall litigate the same and lead their evidence before the Consolidation Officer, who shall proceed to decide the appeal preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. —————