JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. Heard Sri Dharam Raj Mishra for the petitioners. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 7.4.2003 allowing the recall application filed by the contesting respondents and restoring the case to its original number and the Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 18.6.2005 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 25.4.2015 dismissing the appeal as well as the revision of the petitioner against the aforesaid order. 3. On the dispute is being raised between the parties a case was registered under Section 9 A of the Act. It is alleged that notices have been issued to the contesting respondents but they committed default and did not filed any objection nor adduce any evidence therefore the Consolidation Officer by the order dated 11.9.2000 decided the case on merit. Thereafter the contesting respondents filed an application on 7.10.2002 for recall of the aforesaid order. The petitioners filed an objection in the recall application however the Consolidation Officer by the impugned order dated 7.4.2003 allowed the recall application and restored the case to its original number. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by the order dated 18.6.2005 found that order dated 7.4.2003 was an interlocutory order and the appeal was not maintainable. On this finding the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 25.4.2015 without considering the various grounds raised by the petitioners only on the ground that the order restoring the case does not require any interference. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the contesting respondents were appearing before the Consolidation Officer and therefore they had knowledge about the proceeding. The contesting respondents were two persons before the Consolidation Officer and in case one person was not able to attend the case then the proceeding could have been attended by the other person. But they deliberately did not appear before the Consolidation Officer. In such circumstances the Consolidation Officer has not committed any illegality in deciding the case on merit. He further submits that the recall application was filed after the delay of about two years on 7.10.2002. But they deliberately did not appear before the Consolidation Officer. In such circumstances the Consolidation Officer has not committed any illegality in deciding the case on merit. He further submits that the recall application was filed after the delay of about two years on 7.10.2002. The petitioner filed an objection in the recall application and denied the allegation made in the recall application even then no evidence has been adduced to prove the illness of Uttam Singh, one of the applicant. The Consolidation Officer has without considering the objection of the petitioners, allowed the recall application and did not record any finding regarding sufficiency of cause of default. The order allowing the recall application is a final order but the the Settlement Officer Consolidation has illegally dismissed the appeal of the petitioners holding that the order passed in the recall application was interlocutory order. In such circumstances, the orders of Consolidation Officer as well Settlement Officer Consolidation were liable to be set aside but the revision has also been dismissed without considering the grounds raised by the petitioners. 5. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. 6. A perusal of the recall application shows that there was a ground of long illness of parokar. In support of recall application, affidavit was also filed and relying upon the affidavit the Consolidation Officer had recalled the order. The finding recorded regarding sufficiency of cause for default as well as recall of the order, is a finding of fact and no interference is required by this Court in this respect. The petitioners have liberty to contest the case on merit before the Consolidation Officer. However, the case is pending for a long time, as such the Consolidation Officer may proceed to decide the case, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.