JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. 1. Heard Sri Abhisht Saran for the petitioners and Sri R.B.L Shukla for respondent-3 who is the contesting respondent. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14.7.2015 passed in the title proceeding under UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953. 3. A short point has been raised by the counsel for the petitioners before this Court that the revision was filed against the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.11.2009 by which the appeal was allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer for giving opportunity of fresh oral and documentary evidence to the parties and decide the case afresh. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dismissed the revision only on the ground that the impugned order is an open remand order and revision is not maintainable. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rajbir and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others , 1999 (90) RD 330 which has been specifically overruled by the Division Bench of this Court in Deena Nath and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation 2010 (2) RJ 1243. He submits that other grounds raised by the counsel for the petitioners in the revision has not been considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 5. The counsel for the respondents submits that by the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation he has remanded the matter and both the parties have been given opportunity to adduce their evidence and arguing the matter afresh before the Consolidation Officer. Actually no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and the revision is liable to be dismissed on the ground that at present the petitioners are not suffering any irreparable loss. 6. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. 7. A perusal of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.11.2009 shows that the matter has been remanded only on the ground that the appellant was disabled person at the relevant time therefore some additional evidences have to be examined before the trial court as such opportunity of fresh evidence ought to have been given to the parties. 7. A perusal of the order of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 9.11.2009 shows that the matter has been remanded only on the ground that the appellant was disabled person at the relevant time therefore some additional evidences have to be examined before the trial court as such opportunity of fresh evidence ought to have been given to the parties. So far as the disability of Swami Ram at the relevant time is concerned the Consolidation Office has also recorded a finding that claim is not barred under Section 49 of UP C. H. Act 1953, therefore, on the ground of disability claim of Swami Ram was not rejected. 8. Both the parties were given opportunity to lead their evidence and they have also adduced their evidence. In the absence of there being any ground or finding recorded in this respect that proper opportunity of evidence was not given to any of the parties the remand for fresh trial was not expected. Once trial has been completed then the remand for trial will unnecessary delay the proceeding without any reason. 9. So far as the additional evidence filed before the appellate court is concerned, the appellate court has accepted the additional evidence and after giving opportunity of rebuttal it could have been relied upon. In such circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to decide the revision on merit. Even in view of Explanation -3 added in Section 48 of UP C.H. Act the Deputy Director of Consolidation can record a fresh finding of fact in respect of any issue after considering fresh evidence or any evidence on record. In such circumstances, the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside. 10. In the results, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 14.7.2015 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Director of Consolidation who shall decide the revision afresh on merit after hearing the parties concerned within a period of four months. In case any additional evidence is admitted then opportunity of rebuttal will also provide to the opposite party.