JUDGMENT : Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Anil Mehrotra and Sri Manish Kumar Nigam, for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Bhanot and Sri Shiv Kumar Singh, for respondents-7 to 9, 15 and 16. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2) dated 24.09.2014 and Deputy Director of Consolidation (respondent-1) dated 23.02.2015, arising in title proceeding in U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties relates to the land recorded in khatas 52, 106 and 107 of village Dhimlauni, tahsil Mau, district Jhansi. In basic consolidation year, name of Moti Lal son of Bhaiya Lal was recorded over khatas 52 and 106, while names of Moti Lal son of Bhaiya Lal, Ram Gopal, Kishun Lal and Madan Gopal sons of Bal Mukund were recorded over khata 107. Moti Lal died on 06.05.1978. Ram Gopal and others (now represented by respondents-3 to 6, 12 and 13) filed an objection, under Section 9 of the Act, for recording their names, over all the aforesaid khatas. Kusma Devi daughter of Baldeo Prasad filed an objection for recording her name over the khatas in dispute and claimed ½ share in it. Narvada (now represented by the petitioner) and Rama (respondent-14), daughters of Moti Lal filed an objection for recording their names over the land in dispute in place of Moti Lal, on the basis of registered will dated 01.04.1977, executed by Moti Lal, in their favour. All the objections were consolidated and tried by Consolidation Officer, who by order dated 22.11.1979, held that Baldeo (father of Kusuma Devi) died in 1373 F. At that time, Kusma Devi was married as such his share was inherited by his brother Moti Lal. Moti Lal executed a gift deed dated 11.11.1970, in respect of 12-13 acre of land in favour of Ram Gopal, Kishun Lal and Madan Gopal sons of Bal Mukund, which was recorded in their names, in separate khata. The remaining land belong to Moti Lal, who executed a registered will dated 01.04.1977, in favour of his daughters Narvada and Rama. Moti Lal executed a gift deed dated 11.11.1970, in respect of 12-13 acre of land in favour of Ram Gopal, Kishun Lal and Madan Gopal sons of Bal Mukund, which was recorded in their names, in separate khata. The remaining land belong to Moti Lal, who executed a registered will dated 01.04.1977, in favour of his daughters Narvada and Rama. On these findings, objections of Kusma Devi daughter of Baldeo and Ram Gopal, Kishun Lal and Madan Gopal sons of Bal Mukund were dismissed and the names of Narvada, Rama (daughters of Moti Lal) and Gayatri Devi were directed to be recorded on the basis of will dated 01.04.1977. 4. Kusma Devi did not file any appeal from order dated 22.11.1979. Krishna Gopal (now represented by respondents-3 to 6) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 96/81), from the order dated 22.11.1979. The appeal was dismissed in default on 11.11.1980. Krishna Gopal filed an application dated 25.11.1980 for recall of the order dated 11.11.1980, which was also dismissed in default on 04.03.1981. Krishna Gopal filed an application dated 09.03.1981 for recall of the order dated 04.03.1981 and 11.11.1980, which was also dismissed in default on 08.04.1981. Krishna Gopal filed an application dated 08.04.1981 for recall of the orders dated 08.04.1981, 04.03.1981 and 11.11.1980, which was also dismissed in default on 12.07.1988. Thereafter, Krishna Gopal died on 30.10.1990. 5. Smt. Krishna Sharma, Pankaj, Neeraj and Jalaj (respondents-3 to 6) filed an application dated 25.04.2006 for recall of the orders dated 12.07.1988, 08.04.1981, 04.03.1981 and 11.11.1980 and restoring the appeal to its original number and hearing the appeal on merit, along with delay condonation application. Settlement Officer Consolidation (respondent-2), by order dated 27.04.2007 , allowed the recall application, set aside orders dated 12.07.1988, 08.04.1981, 04.03.1981 and 11.11.1980 and restored the appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was allowed by order dated 20.06.2009 and order of Consolidation Officer has been set aside and the matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for fresh trail on merit. 6. The petitioner and Smt. Gayatri Sharma filed an application dated 25.04.2011 for recall of the order dated 20.06.2009, stating therein that Narvada died in 2003 and their names were mutated in the revenue records as her heirs by order dated 10.07.2006. In the recall application filed by respondents-3 to 6, Narvada was impleaded as opposite party. 6. The petitioner and Smt. Gayatri Sharma filed an application dated 25.04.2011 for recall of the order dated 20.06.2009, stating therein that Narvada died in 2003 and their names were mutated in the revenue records as her heirs by order dated 10.07.2006. In the recall application filed by respondents-3 to 6, Narvada was impleaded as opposite party. Neither any notice was issued to Narvada nor her heirs and the recall application was allowed against dead person. Smt. Rama Devi also filed another application dated 13.05.2011 for recall of the order dated 20.06.2009. Both the applications were consolidated and heard together. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 20.08.2011 allowed the recall applications and set aside the order dated 20.06.2009. The petitioner and Smt. Gayatri Sharma filed an application dated 19.10.2011 for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2007 also. However, it appears that the parties advanced their arguments on merit and also filed their written arguments. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 28.12.2011 decided the appeal finally and held that the name of Bal Mukund was recorded in 1359 F but the names of his heirs were not recorded in subsequent year after his death, although Bal Mukund left behind him, his three sons who were his heirs. The Consolidation Officer further did not record any findings as to whether Kusuma Devi was alive on the date of death of Baldeo, although objection of Kusuma Devi was also pending before him. Neither the heirs of Bal Mukund nor the heir of Baldeo were given opportunity of evidence and their claim has been rejected only on the basis of will of Moti Lal, although due execution of the will was not proved. On these findings, the appeal was allowed, order of Consolidation Officer dated 22.11.1979 was set aside and matter was remanded to Consolidation Officer for fresh trial and decision on merit. 7. The petitioner and Smt. Gayatri Sharma filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 9 of 2012), Smt. Rama Devi filed another revision (registered as Revision No. 14 of 2012) from the aforesaid order. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard together by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 02.09.2013 held that finding of Settlement Officer Consolidation that heirs of Bal Mukund and Baldeo were not given proper opportunity of hearing in their objections, does not suffer from any illegality. As such no interference is required. Both the revisions were consolidated and heard together by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 02.09.2013 held that finding of Settlement Officer Consolidation that heirs of Bal Mukund and Baldeo were not given proper opportunity of hearing in their objections, does not suffer from any illegality. As such no interference is required. On these findings, the revisions were dismissed. 8. The petitioner and Smt. Gayatri Sharma filed Writ-B No. 58508 of 2013 against the aforesaid orders. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 13.11.2013. In paragraphs-6, 9 and 10 of the judgment, it has been wrongly mentioned that the petitioners had filed an application dated 25.04.2011, for recall of the orders dated 27.04.2007 and 20.06.2009, as copy of the recall application dated 25.04.2011 was not filed along with writ petition as such on the basis of arguments of the respondents, this mistake had occurred. Later on, on the application of the petitioners, these mistakes were corrected on 16.12.2013, and words "27.04.2007 and" have been deleted from aforesaid places of the judgment. The petitioners have also filed a review application for review of the judgment dated 13.11.2013 on the ground that due to aforementioned mistakes, the Court, in paragraphs-10 and 12 of the judgments, has observed that the application dated 19.10.2011, filed by the petitioners, was not maintainable and amounts to review application. This observation is an error apparent on face of record as such the judgments was liable to be reviewed and aforementioned observation be deleted. Review application is also heard along with this writ petition and is being rejected by separate order. 9. After remand, Settlement Officer Consolidation heard the arguments of the parties on application of the petitioner dated 19.10.2011 for setting aside the order dated 27.04.2007 also. Settlement Officer Consolidation by dated 24.09.2014 held that in the order dated 20.08.2011, validity of the orders dated 11.11.1980, 04.03.1981, 08.04.1981 and 13.07.1988 were challenged/examined. The petitioner and Smt. Rama Devi were not given opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 20.06.2009 as such their recall applications were allowed by order dated 20.08.2011 and order dated 20.06.2009 was set aside. The order dated 27.04.2007 was merged in the order dated 20.08.2011. Fresh application has been filed malafide to avoid final arguments in the appeal. The petitioner and Smt. Rama Devi were not given opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated 20.06.2009 as such their recall applications were allowed by order dated 20.08.2011 and order dated 20.06.2009 was set aside. The order dated 27.04.2007 was merged in the order dated 20.08.2011. Fresh application has been filed malafide to avoid final arguments in the appeal. Although in the order dated 27.04.2007, there were technical defects but these defects have become irrelevant at this time as now after hearing the petitioner by order dated 20.08.2011, previous order was set aside and all the issues raised by the petitioner have been decided as such this application amounts to review application and is not maintainable. On these findings, the application dated 19.10.2011 was rejected and a date has been fixed for final arguments in appeal. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 117) from the aforesaid order, which was dismissed by order dated 23.02.2015. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 10. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that Settlement Officer Consolidation was misguided by uncorrected judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2013 although words "27.04.2007 and" mentioned in the judgment were deleted on 11.12.2013. He has illegally held that order dated 27.08.2011 was merged with order dated 20.08.2011. Restoration application dated 25.04.2006 filed by respondents-3 to 6 was highly time barred. Smt. Narvada had died in 2003 but she was cited as opposite party. Neither any notice was issued to Smt. Narvada nor to her heirs. The order was against dead person and is nullity as held by Supreme Court in Ashok Transport Agency v. Awadhesh Kumar, (1998) 5 SCC 567 . The respondents obtained orders against dead persons by committing fraud on Court. The order obtained by fraud is nullity and can be challenged at any time as held by Supreme Court in Gowrishankar v. Joshi Ambashankar Family Trust, ( 1996 (3) SCC 310 and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319 . Delay of about 18 years, in filing recall application dated 25.04.2006 was not condoned. Without condoning the delay, Settlement Officer Consolidation had no jurisdiction to pass any order in recall application. Order dated 27.04.2007, allowing recall application was against a dead person and is nullity and was liable to be recalled. Delay of about 18 years, in filing recall application dated 25.04.2006 was not condoned. Without condoning the delay, Settlement Officer Consolidation had no jurisdiction to pass any order in recall application. Order dated 27.04.2007, allowing recall application was against a dead person and is nullity and was liable to be recalled. Findings of Settlement Officer Consolidation that application dated 19.10.2011 is a review application, is illegal in as much as application dated 25.04.2011 was filed for recalling the order dated 20.06.2009 while application dated 19.10.2011 was filed for recalling the order dated 27.04.2007 and is not a review application. So long as, order dated 20.06.2009 is not recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number, the petitioner was not entitled to file an application for recall of the order dated 27.04.2007. Recall application dated 19.10.2011 is maintainable as held by this Court in Mst. Lakshmi Devi v. Roongta and company, AIR 1962 All 381 and Mulachand Samana v. Imus Mian Shaikh, AIR 1956 Bombay, 245. Principles of waiver will not apply as held by this Court in Ram Raksh Pal v. Brij Nandan Swarup, AIR 1967 All. 325 and Supreme Court in Associated Hotels of India v. Ranjt Singh, AIR 1968 SC 933 and P. Dasa Muni Reddy v. P. Appa Rao, AIR 1974 SC 2089 . In the absence of pleading, issue relating to waiver cannot be raised as held in M.P. Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., AIR 1979 SC 621 and M/S Ceean International Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Surana, AIR 2003 Cal. 263 . Action in moving recall applications dated 25.04.2011 and 19.10.2011 were for different causes of action and separate applications for recall of two orders were maintainable as held by this Court in Mani Ram v. Ram Gopal, 1997 Law Suit (ALL) 807. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has no application in the proceedings before Consolidation Courts as held by Full Bench of this Court In Bijai Narain Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 All 241 (FB). Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered any ground raised in revision nor recorded any independent findings and dismissed the revision by a cryptic order. Orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and liable to be set aside. 11. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Deputy Director of Consolidation has not considered any ground raised in revision nor recorded any independent findings and dismissed the revision by a cryptic order. Orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation and Deputy Director of Consolidation are illegal and liable to be set aside. 11. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Recall applications filed for recalling the orders dated 11.11.1980, 04.03.1981 and 08.04.1981 were within time. Recall application dated 25.04.2006 filed for recall of the order dated 12.07.1988 was time barred. In the recall application dated 25.04.2006, the respondents had alleged that Krishna Gopal was residing at Tikamgarh (M.P.), from where, he was attending his case at Jhansi. On 28.05.1982, recall application had become undated. Thereafter, without issuing any notice to Krishna Gopal, fixing the date in recall application, it was dismissed in default on 12.07.1988. Krishna Gopal died on 30.11.1990 leaving behind him, his widow and minor sons as his heirs and they had no knowledge of the appeal or recall applications filed in it. It is only on 18.04.2006, when some papers were received then an inquiry was made and they came to know about it. Thus delay in filing the recall application has been properly explained and cause was sufficient for condoning delay. Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Administrator Hawrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 361 and Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Krishna Sen Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3536 held that if appeal was decided on merit without any specific order condoning delay, delay must be deemed to have been condoned. Thus this point has no merit. 12. So far as the findings that recall application dated 19.10.2011 amounts to review is concerned, Settlement Officer Consolidation in order dated 24.09.2014 found that in the order dated 20.08.2011, validity of the orders dated 11.11.1980, 04.03.1981, 08.04.1981 and 13.07.1988 were examined as such the application dated 19.10.2011 amounts to review application and is not maintainable. A perusal of the recall application dated 25.04.2011 filed by the petitioner shows that she had raised a ground that order dated 27.04.2007 was illegal. In paragraph-26 of the writ petition it has been stated that due to inadvertence, in recall application dated 25.04.2011, the petitioner did not pray for recall the order dated 27.04.2007. A perusal of the recall application dated 25.04.2011 filed by the petitioner shows that she had raised a ground that order dated 27.04.2007 was illegal. In paragraph-26 of the writ petition it has been stated that due to inadvertence, in recall application dated 25.04.2011, the petitioner did not pray for recall the order dated 27.04.2007. Thus validity of order dated 27.04.2007 had been specifically challenged by the petitioner and was very much in issue at that time. If this issue was not decided or incorrectly decided, second application for examining this issue again amounts to review application. Full Bench of this Court in Shivraji v. DDC and others, 1997 RD 562 (FB) held that consolidation authorities have not been conferred with the power of review under the Act. The application dated 19.10.2011, filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and amounts to a review application. Findings of Settlement Officer Consolidation, in this respect does not suffer from any illegality. 13. Admittedly, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 has no application in the proceedings before Consolidation Courts as held by Full Bench of this Court In Bijai Narain Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1970 All 241 (FB). As such the procedure as given under the Act has to be followed. Section 11 of the Act provides for appeal from the order of Consolidation Officer passed in proceedings under Section 9-A of the Act. Only requirement for hearing/deciding the appeal is to give opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the absence of any provision like Order 22, Rule 3 and 4 C.P.C. on the death of parties, there is no provision for abatement of the appeal. Heir of deceased were substituted subsequently. Settlement Officer Consolidation found that the petitioner and Smt. Rama Devi were not given opportunity of hearing, before passing the order dated 20.06.2009 as such the recall applications were allowed by order dated 20.08.2011 and order dated 20.06.2009 was set aside and the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing. Fresh application for recall of the order dated 27.04.2007 has been filed malafide to avoid final arguments in the appeal. 14. Fresh application for recall of the order dated 27.04.2007 has been filed malafide to avoid final arguments in the appeal. 14. Even, under the provisions of C.P.C., it has been held that for allowing application under Order 9, Rule 4 C.P.C., notice is not required to be issued to the defendant of the suit, in Babu v. L. Dewan Singh, AIR 1952 All 749 , Laljit Singh v. Pyare Lal, AIR 1956 All. 714 (DB), Suraj Prasad Singh v. Ram Baran Singh, AIR 1956 Pat. 127 , Patiram Chand v. Shamsher Singh, AIR 1986 P &H 300. Various orders dismissing the appeal and recall applications were passed in absence of the petitioner or her predecessor-in-interest, its recall without notice to them was not an illegal order. The arguments that fraud has been practiced by the respondents, is not liable to be accepted. It is only due to inadvertence, heirs were not substituted as such final order passed in appeal was recalled and the heirs are given opportunity of hearing according to provisions of Section 11 of the Act. 15. So far as cause of action is concerned, Privy Council in Mohammad Khalil Khan v. Mahbub Ali Mian, AIR 1949 PC 78 and Supreme Court in Suran Ratan Thirani v. Azamabad Tea Company Ltd., AIR 1965 SC 295 held that it has to be construed with reference to the substance than the form of action. In considering whether the cause of action in the subsequent suit is the same or not, as the cause of action in the previous suit, the test to be applied is/are the causes of action in the two suits in substance - not technically - identical" Ex-parte orders passed in appeal were cause of action for the petitioner. Separate orders cannot be treated separate causes of action for maintainability of separate recall applications. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion the impugned orders do not suffers from any illegalities. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. Petition Dismissed.