Ran Vijai Singh, J.— Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.12.2012, passed in Revision No. 9 of 2012 (Ram Adhar and others Vs. Smt Nanhi Devi), by which the Deputy Director of Consolidation has quashed the interim order dated 16.07.2012, passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in Appeal No. 330 of 2011-12 (Smt Nanhi Devi Vs. Ram Adhar and others), with the direction to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to decide the appeal within a period of two months. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that, an objection was filed under Section 9-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to asthe Act) before the Consolidation Officer, which was allowed vide order dated 14.05.2012. It appears, this is the second round of litigation and the order dated 14.05.2012 was passed after direction of this Court dated 21.07.2003 in Writ Petition No. 41719 of 1990. Challenging this order, a statutory appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation by the present petitioner, in which an interim order was passed staying the operation of the order dated 14.05.2012, with further direction to the parties not to alienate the land in the mean time. Challenging this order, respondents, herein, filed Revision No. 9 of 2012 (Ram Adhar and others Vs. Smt Nanhi Devi), which has been allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in Appeal No. 330 of 2011-12. Shri Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the revision itself was not maintainable and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in entertaining the revision and allowing the same by quashing the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 16.07.2012. Shri Lalji Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondents contends that the petitioner is delaying the proceeding of the revision and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to entertain the revision. He has further contended that it was the specific ground of the respondents in the revision that the respondent/petitioner was trying to dispossess the revisionists/respondents forcefully. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. He has further contended that it was the specific ground of the respondents in the revision that the respondent/petitioner was trying to dispossess the revisionists/respondents forcefully. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The remedy of revision is available to a tenure holder under Section 48 (1) of the Act against any order other than interlocutory order.The interlocutory order, as would appear from explanation (2) has been explained as the expression 'interlocutory order' in relation to a case or proceeding, means such order deciding any matter arising in such case or proceeding or collateral thereto as does not have the effect to finally disposing of such case or proceeding. Here, in this case, in a pending statutory appeal, where the Settlement Officer, Consolidation has power to grant interim relief, an interim order was granted temporarily after issuing notice to the other side. This order was not final between the parties and it was subject to recall, modification, variation or vacation. The respondents No. 2 to 4, instead of filing an application for recall/modification/vacation of this order, have approached the revisional court where the impugned order has been set aside. I am of the considered opinion that an ex parte interim order would be governed by the Explanation 2 of sub-section (1) of Section 48 and will fall in the ambit of interlocutory order, therefore, revision, itself, was not maintainable and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is without jurisdiction. It is well settled that order without jurisdiction is a nullity. Reference may be given to Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization Vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd., 2004 (9) SCC 619 ; Sarup Singh & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2011 (11) SCC 198 and a Division Bench of the Court in the case of Committee of Management Shri Jawahar Inter College & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012 decided on 25.01.2012. In view of the above settled legal position, the impugned order dated 26.12.2012 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. in Special Appeal No. 164 of 2012 decided on 25.01.2012. In view of the above settled legal position, the impugned order dated 26.12.2012 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by Shri Sahu, it is directed that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation shall decide the appeal itself within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order of this Court. The counsel for the parties undertake that they will not seek any unnecessary adjournments. For the period of three months or till the disposal of the appeal No. 330 of 2011-12, the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 16.07.2012 will continue and the parties shall maintain status quo as on date. _____________