Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri P. K. Kesari for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 18.06.2011 allowing the revision and setting aside the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 06.01.2006 and Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 21.11.1998 and matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial on merit, arising out of title proceedings under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute before the consolidation authorities was in respect of land of basic consolidation year Khata 595 of village Jalhupur, pargana Jalhupur, district Varanasi. In CH Form-4, the dispute relating to share of the parties was noted. Siya Ram (respondent-3) filed an objection on 10.08.1986 claiming that the land in dispute was his exclusive property and his co-laterals have no share in it. Other co-sharers also filed objection claiming their share in it. The matter could not be compromised before Assistant Consolidation Officer between the parties therefore Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 16.11.1997 referred the dispute to Consolidation Officer for decision on merit. It is alleged that before Consolidation Officer the matter was compromised between the parties and a written compromise was filed on 21.11.1998 and the Consolidation Officer on its basis decided the case by order dated 21.11.1998. 4. Siya Ram filed an appeal on 09.07.1999 along with delay condonation application against the order dated 21.11.1998. The appeal was dismissed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 06.01.2006 as time barred. Siya Ram, thereafter filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which has been allowed by impugned order dated 18.06.2011. Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order found that notice issued in the objection was been served personally on Siya Ram rather the service had been affected through affixation. In the appeal as well as in the affidavit filed along with delay condonation application, Siya Ram has denied service of notice as well as his appearance before Consolidation Officer and filing of the compromise. In such circumstances, Settlement Officer, Consolidation has committed illegality in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal as time barred. On this finding the revision was allowed and the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation were set aside and matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial on merit. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. In such circumstances, Settlement Officer, Consolidation has committed illegality in not condoning the delay and dismissing the appeal as time barred. On this finding the revision was allowed and the orders of Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation were set aside and matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for trial on merit. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 5. It may be noted that it was specifically argued before Settlement Officer, Consolidation that the compromise as well as Vakalatnama produced before Consolidation Officer were fabricated documents. However, Settlement Officer Consolidation merely compared the signatures of Siya Ram as contained on his objection with his signatures on memorandum of appeal and held that it were fully tallying but Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally ignored the argument that signatures on the Vakalatnama as well as on compromise were fabricated signatures. Photostat certified copy of the compromise and memorandum of appeal and affidavit filed by Siya Ram along with delay condonation application have been filed along with writ petition also. A comparison of signature on compromise (page 25 of the writ petition) does not tally with the signatures on the memorandum of appeal and affidavit (Annexure-2). Thus Settlement Officer Consolidation illegally failed to consider the relevant fact. 6. The counsel for the petitioners submits that as the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation as such the revisional court at the most exercise its jurisdiction under Section 48 to the extent of consideration of the limitation itself and it has no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merit. The appeal has been illegally allowed on merit and the order of Consolidation Officer has been set aside. He relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Tirath Vs Joint Director of Consolidation and others, 1985, RD 276 (DB) and judgment of Single Judge in Bashir Ahmad Khan Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2005 (98), RD 378. He further submits that by virtue of Section 41 of the Act, Chapter- IX and X of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 has been applied to the proceedings before the consolidation authorities. He further submits that by virtue of Section 41 of the Act, Chapter- IX and X of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 has been applied to the proceedings before the consolidation authorities. Siya Ram was contending that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer was an ex-parte order then in view of Section 201 of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901, he could have filed a recall application and the appeal was not maintainable on his behalf as held by this Court in Nobat and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2005 ACJ, 2223. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. In this case, Deputy Director of Consolidation found that Settlement Officer, Consolidation has illegally refused to condone the delay as notice was not served personally upon Siya Ram and he had denied filing of compromise and engaging counsel before Consolidation Officer. Accordingly it was held that delay was liable to be condoned. Believing upon the allegations made in the affidavit filed by Siya Ram, he allowed the revision and set aside the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation as well as Consolidation Officer also exercising his power under Section 48 of the Act. Section 48 (1) of the Act is quoted below:- Section 48- Revision and Reference.-(1) The Deputy Director of Consolidation may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings taken by any subordinate authority for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the regularity of the proceedings; or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order other than an interlocutory order passed by such authority in the case or proceedings, may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, make such order in the case or proceedings as he thinks fit. Explanation (3).-The power under this section to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order includes the power to examine any finding, whether of fact or law, recorded any subordinate authority and also includes the power to re-appreciate any oral and documentary evidence. 8. Supreme Court in Sheo Nand Vs. DDC and others, AIR 2000 SC 1141 and Gulzar Vs. DDC and others (2009) 12 SCC 590 held that Deputy Director of Consolidation has very wide power under the revision to re-appreciate any oral and documentary evidence and decide any issue relating to fact. 9. 8. Supreme Court in Sheo Nand Vs. DDC and others, AIR 2000 SC 1141 and Gulzar Vs. DDC and others (2009) 12 SCC 590 held that Deputy Director of Consolidation has very wide power under the revision to re-appreciate any oral and documentary evidence and decide any issue relating to fact. 9. Question that when the appellate court refused to condone the delay and consequently the appeal is dismissed as time barred, will amount to order passed in appeal came for consideration before Supreme Court in Shyam Sundar Sarma Vs. Pannalal Jaiswal, (2005) 1 SCC 436 , in which it was held that an appeal registered under Rule 9 of Order 41 of the Code had to be disposed of according to law and a dismissal of an appeal for the reason of delay in its presentation, after the dismissal of an application for condoning the delay, is in substance and effect a confirmation of the decree appealed against. Thus, the position that emerges on a survey of the authorities is that an appeal filed along with an application for condoning the delay in filing that appeal when dismissed on the refusal to condone the delay is nevertheless a decision in the appeal. 10. The controversy as to whether in the appeal filed by a defendant from ex-parte decree, it is open to consider the correctness of order proceedings ex-parte or the reason for default of the the defendant came for consideration before Supreme Court in Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar, (2005) 1 SCC 787 , in which it was held that the dichotomy, in our opinion, can be resolved by holding that whereas the defendant would not be permitted to raise a contention as regards the correctness or otherwise of the order posting the suit for ex-parte hearing by the trial court and/or existence of a sufficient case for non-appearance of the defendant before it, it would be open to him to argue in the first appeal filed by him under Section 96(2) of the Code on the merits of the suit so as to enable him to contend that the materials brought on record by the plaintiffs were not sufficient for passing a decree in his favour or the suit was otherwise not maintainable. Lack of jurisdiction of the court can also be a possible plea in such an appeal. 11. Lack of jurisdiction of the court can also be a possible plea in such an appeal. 11. Thus when the revision has been filed against an order of appellate authority dismissing the appeal as time barred Deputy Director of Consolidation has jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the order rejecting the delay condonation application and in case delay is condoned then to decide the case on merit also as he has jurisdiction to examine correctness of the order of Consolidation Officer also. The Division Bench judgment is not applicable in this case as in that case without recording any finding that the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation in rejecting the delay condonation application suffers from any illegality, the revision has been allowed on merit. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court, the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners in this respect is not liable to be accepted. 12. So far as other arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners that in view of Section 41 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act the appeal was not maintainable is concerned. Section 41 of UP Consolidation of Holdings Act is quoted below:- Section 41. Application of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.- Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of Chapter IX and X of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, shall apply to all proceedings including appeal and applications under this Act. 13. Thus a bare perusal of Section 41 of the Act shows that unless expressly provided under this Act provisions of Chapter IX and X of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 will apply. Section 11 of the Act provides for an appeal from an order of Consolidation Officer. Under the Act there is no restriction of filing of an appeal from ex-parte order as contained in Section 201 of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901. As such provisions of UP Land Revenue Act, 1901 has limited application as held by Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Shivraji Vs. DDC and others, 1997 RD 652 (FB). 14. On merit the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that as notice was not served to Siya Ram in his objection as such he could neither engage any counsel nor file any compromise before the Consolidation Officer. He denied the share of the petitioners as well as other co-sharers in khata in dispute. DDC and others, 1997 RD 652 (FB). 14. On merit the Deputy Director of Consolidation found that as notice was not served to Siya Ram in his objection as such he could neither engage any counsel nor file any compromise before the Consolidation Officer. He denied the share of the petitioners as well as other co-sharers in khata in dispute. In such circumstances, the compromise being denied the matter has been rightly remanded for trial on merit. 15. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed. Since the matter is pending for a long time the Consolidation Officer may proceed to decide the dispute expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him. _____________