JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Shiv Kant Tiwari, for the petitioners and Sri Vijai Shankar Tripathi, for the contesting respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Consolidation Officer dated 26.03.2002 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.01.2007, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties relates to basic consolidation year khata 121 of village Firojpur Makhdoomi, pargana Rudauli, district Barabanki, which was recorded in the names of Jokhan son of Ram Pal (now represented by respondents-3 and 4) (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) and Shiv Bahadur son of Ram Harsh (now represented by the petitioners). Jokhan filed a time barred objection (registered as Case No. 582/01-02) under Section 9-A of the Act, for deleting the name of Shiv Bahadur from the land in dispute. 4. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 21.03.1996 proceeded exparte against Shiv Bahadur. Shiv Bahadur filed an application dated 08.12.1999 for recalling the order dated 21.03.1996, condoning the delay, stating therein that he had no knowledge of the objection filed by Jokhan or the order passed in it, earlier. On the basis of order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 30.01.1999, when he made inquiry in the office of Consolidation Officer, then he came to know about the case and order passed in it. It may be mentioned that although, in paragraph-3 of the application and affidavit, date of the order has been mentioned as 21.03.1996 but in prayer clause date has been mentioned as 21.03.1999. The application was contested by the respondents. The case was adjourned time to time and 20.03.2002 was the date fixed. On 20.03.2002, Shiv Bahadur did not attend the case. The Consolidation Officer, by order dated 20.03.2002, rejected the application dated 08.12.1999 and fixed 21.03.2002 for exparte evidence of the respondents. After recording evidence, he heard the arguments and by order dated 26.03.2002 allowed the objection. 5. Shiv Bahadur filed an application dated 08.04.2002 for recalling the order dated 26.03.2002, stating therein that on 20.03.2002, he had fallen ill, due to which he could not attend the case and his application dated 08.12.1999 was rejected in default and exparte order was passed on 26.03.2002. The respondents contested the recall application. 5. Shiv Bahadur filed an application dated 08.04.2002 for recalling the order dated 26.03.2002, stating therein that on 20.03.2002, he had fallen ill, due to which he could not attend the case and his application dated 08.12.1999 was rejected in default and exparte order was passed on 26.03.2002. The respondents contested the recall application. After hearing the parties, Consolidation Officer, by order dated 12.06.2002, believed the allegations of Shiv Bahadur as such in order to provide opportunity of hearing to the parties, allowed the recall application on the costs of Rs. 125/- and recalled the order dated 12.06.2002 and restored the case. 6. The respondents filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 794) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 23.01.2007 held that Shiv Bahadur could not state as to on what basis his name was recorded by Supervisor Kanoongo. Consolidation Officer has passed the order dated 26.02.2002 on merit. Shiv Bahadur ought to have filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, instead of filing the recall application. On these findings, he allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 12.06.2002 and maintained the order dated 26.03.2002. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record A perusal of the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, shows that the revision was allowed only on the ground that order dated 26.03.2002 was passed on merit. Shiv Bahadur ought to have filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, in stead of filing of the recall application. Although various arguments of the respondents were noted but no finding has been recorded in this respect. Thus the revision has been allowed without recording any finding regarding sufficiency of cause for default on 20.03.2002. Shiv Bahadur, in his application has stated that 20.03.2002 was the date fixed before Consolidation Officer and on day he fell ill due to which he could not appear before Consolidation Officer. The recall application was filed on 08.04.2002, which was well within time. The Consolidation Officer, believed the allegations made of Shiv Bahadur and recalled the exparte order. Before allowing the revision, Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to set aside that finding and consider the reason for default. The recall application was filed on 08.04.2002, which was well within time. The Consolidation Officer, believed the allegations made of Shiv Bahadur and recalled the exparte order. Before allowing the revision, Deputy Director of Consolidation was required to set aside that finding and consider the reason for default. The revision was allowed on irrelevant consideration that order dated 26.03.2002 was on merit and appeal ought to have been filed. The order, being an exparte order, recall application was maintainable and it was rightly allowed by Consolidation Officer. 8. The counsel for the respondents, on the basis of facts mentioned in the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, submits that the application dated 08.12.1999 was filed wholly on vague allegations, in as much as prayer was made for recalling the order dated 21.03.1999, although there was no such order. The application was filed on 08.12.1999 but Shiv Bahadur did not care for its disposal till 20.03.2002. On 20.03.2002, the counsel for Shiv Bahadur appeared before Consolidation Officer in other case but he deliberately did not attend this case. Thus there was deliberate default on behalf of Shiv Bahadur as his name had been illegally recorded in the revenue record. The order of Consolidation Officer dated 12.06.2002 has been rightly set aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction may not interfere with the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation. 9. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the respondents. Although in paragraph-3 of the application and affidavit dated 08.12.1999, date of order 21.03.1996 has been mentioned but inadvertently in prayer clause 21.03.1999 has been mentioned. Due to this inadvertent error the application could not be dismissed. Fact that Shiv Bahadur was ill on 20.03.2002 has not been denied by the petitioners before Consolidation Officer. Thus illness was sufficient cause for Shiv Bahadur for committing default on 20.03.1999. So far as the argument that the counsel for Shiv Bahadur had attended another case before Consolidation Officer but deliberately avoided to appear in this case, is concerned, usually before the trial court, the client used to watch the case and not the counsel. In case, due to illness, the client was unable to attend the case, then he cannot made to suffer, for negligence committed by the counsel. In case, due to illness, the client was unable to attend the case, then he cannot made to suffer, for negligence committed by the counsel. Similarly hearing on the application dated 08.12.1999 was adjourned up to 20.03.2002, then Shiv Bahadur cannot be blamed for it. In basic consolidation record, name of Shiv Bahadur was recorded in the khata in dispute as such he was entitled for opportunity of hearing. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order suffers from an error apparent on face of record and is liable to be set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 23.01.2007 is set aside. The Consolidation Officer shall proceed with the case in pursuance of the order dated 12.06.2002. He shall try to decide it finally after giving opportunity of evidence/hearing to the parties, expeditiously preferably within a period of six month from the date of producing a certified copy of this order before him. Both the parties are appearing before this Court, they may appear before Consolidation Officer on 01.12.2015, who, thereafter, with the convenience of the parties, frame issues and fix a date for evidence and proceed in accordance with law.