JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Singh for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Pathak for respondent-3. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 9.9.2015 recalling the order dated 22.12.2003 dismissing the objection in default and the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 2.7.2016 dismissing the revision of the petitioner filed against the aforesaid order. 3. The dispute between the parties was in respect of plot no. 633 and 705 of village Thekma, pargana Bela Daulatabad, tehsil Lalganj, Distt. Azamgarh. In basic consolidation record the land in dispute was recorded in khata no. 347 in the name of Triloki Rai, father of the petitioner. Bajrangi and others filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act claiming their right over the aforesaid plots by way of adverse possession. It is stated that the dispute between the parties was compromised before the Assistant Consolidation Officer by order dated 13.12.1970. Smt. Indrawati Devi filed a revision against the order dated 13.12.1970 on 11.4.1984 along with delay condonation application. Smt. Indrawati Devi was deriving her title on the basis of gift deed executed by Triloki, the recorded tenure holder. The revision was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 22.2.1999 and the order of Assistant Consolidation Officer dated 13.12.1970 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Consolidation Officer for deciding the dispute on merit after taking the evidence of the parties. The order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.2.1999 was challenged in Writ B No. 10449 of 1999 which was dismissed by this Court by order dated 27.3.1999. It is alleged that in pursuance of the remand order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer was started since 5.2.1999. A perusal of the order sheet of Consolidation Officer filed as Annexure- SA-2 shows that on 19.7.2000 and 1.11.2002, in the order sheet it was noted that both the parties were present along with their counsels. However the case was dismissed in default on 22.12.2003 in the absence of parties. Thereafter Prabhat , respondent-3 alone filed an application for recalling the order dated 22.12.2003 along with delay condonation application on 15.11.2014. However the case was dismissed in default on 22.12.2003 in the absence of parties. Thereafter Prabhat , respondent-3 alone filed an application for recalling the order dated 22.12.2003 along with delay condonation application on 15.11.2014. In the recall application, it has been stated that after passing the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, notice was not issued by the Consolidation Officer to the parties as such he could never know about the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer. It is only in the reference proceeding, when he had to file writ petition in which Smt. Indrawati Devi and her heirs Lokesh Kumar and others filed counter affidavit then on the basis of information received through counter affidavit, inquiry was made by him then he came to know about the order dated 22.12.2003 in the year 2014 and recall application was filed on 15.11.2014. The petitioner contested the recall application and filed his objection. In the objection it has been stated that Triloki Rai died on 25.11.2005 and Smt. Indrawati Devi died on 15.1.2014 and in spite of knowledge about the death of the aforesaid persons, Prabhat Kumar Rai did not take any step for substituting the heirs of deceased persons. The recall application is virtually against dead persons and is liable to be dismissed. It has also been mentioned that the recall application be dismissed on this preliminary objection itself. The Consolidation Officer by the impugned order dated 9.9.2015 found that as the order dated 22.12.2003 is passed in the absence of parties as such it is liable to be recalled. On this finding he condoned the delay and recalled the order dated 22.12.2003. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in revision which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. 5. So far as the objection that Smt. Indrawati Devi and Triloki Rai were dead is concerned, the petitioner was claiming to be heir and he was appearing before the Consolidation Officer. In consolidation proceeding the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable as such on the death of parties, the proceeding will not be abated. Only by virtue of various provisions of the Act, the opportunity of hearing was required to be given. In consolidation proceeding the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is not applicable as such on the death of parties, the proceeding will not be abated. Only by virtue of various provisions of the Act, the opportunity of hearing was required to be given. Since the heirs were appearing before the Consolidation Officer as such they have liberty to contest the recall application. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order, recalling the order of dismissing the case in default. 6. So far as the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the order sheet of Consolidation Officer dated 19.7.2000 and 1.11.2002 shows that both the parties appeared before the Consolidation Officer is concerned, although in the order sheet it has been noted that both the parties have appeared but in the typed copy of the order sheet it has not indicated that respondent -3 has signed the order sheet and there is nothing on record to show that respondent-3 has engaged any counsel who had appeared before the Consolidation Officer. In such circumstances, no inference can be drawn that respondent-3 was appearing before the Consolidation Officer on 19.7.2000 or 1.11.2002. Otherwise also on the date of dismissal of the objection on 22.12.2003, both the parties were absent. Thus the order of dismissal was passed in the absence of the parties and it had been recalled. 7. So far as the argument that there is in ordinate delay in filing the recall application is concerned, respondent-3 in the recall application has clearly stated that after remand no notice has been issued to the parties by the Consolidation Officer therefore he had no knowledge about the proceeding. So far as other proceeding is concerned, the other proceeding is based upon the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, setting aside the original order of Assistant Consolidation Officer was a reference proceeding. Therefore on its basis, it cannot be said that parties had knowledge of the order dated 22.12.2003 also. Thus in the absence of any notice or knowledge of the proceeding, the delay is liable to be condoned. In any case this Court is not competent to examine the sufficiency of cause for condoning the delay as it is the discretion of the court concerned before which the application is moved. 8. Thus in the absence of any notice or knowledge of the proceeding, the delay is liable to be condoned. In any case this Court is not competent to examine the sufficiency of cause for condoning the delay as it is the discretion of the court concerned before which the application is moved. 8. In such circumstances, no interference is required by this Court. However, as some of the parties have died, the Consolidation Officer in order to proceed with the matter and decide it on merit, shall substitute the heirs of the deceased parties and give a fresh notice to the heirs of deceased parties as well as all the persons who were initially contested the matter before the Assistant Consolidation Officer and after ensuring the service of notice to the parties, he shall proceed to decide the case expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of producing a certified copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of.