JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri M.N. Singh for the petitioners and Sri Jeevan Prakash Sharma for the caveator. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 27.6.2016 dismissing the revisions of the petitioners and directing the Consolidation Officer to decide the case on merit after hearing the parties within a period of one month. The dispute under Section 9 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1951(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") is pending before Consolidation Officer. It is alleged that both parties have exchanged their written arguments after completion of their evidence. However, Presiding Officer being not available the matter could not be concluded and thereafter from 25.5.2009 the case was listed for delivery of order and ultimately the order was delivered on 22.9.2009 on merit. Against the order dated 22.9.2009 respondents-4 and 5 filed a recall application. Consolidation Officer by order dated 11.7.2012 allowed recall application of respondents-4 and 5 and the recall application of Smt. Rampa Devi was dismissed and order dated 22.9.2009 was set aside against the petitioners and their objections were restored for being decided afresh. The petitioners filed an appeal against the order dated 11.7.2012 before Settlement Officer Consolidation, who by order dated 30.4.2015 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners only on the ground that revision of Smt. Rampa Devi against the order dismissing her recall application has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to Consolidation Officer, as such the appeal has become infructuous. The petitioners filed a revision against the aforesaid order, which has been dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order 27.7.2016. hence this writ petition has been filed. Deputy Director of Consolidation in the impugned order has recorded a finding that order sheet dated 4.6.2009 and 9.6.2009 was not signed by any of the parties. On 9.6.2009 general date 15.6.2009 was fixed. On 15.6.2009 order sheet shows that both the parties appeared and informed that parties had filed their written submissions and there is no need for oral arguments. Thereafter the judgment was delivered on 22.9.2009 and typed judgment was placed on record. Although at that time Consolidation Officer had no facility of Typist. Consolidation Officers used to write judgment in their own hand writing. Thus, order was ex parte and rightly recalled by the Consolidation officer. Thereafter the judgment was delivered on 22.9.2009 and typed judgment was placed on record. Although at that time Consolidation Officer had no facility of Typist. Consolidation Officers used to write judgment in their own hand writing. Thus, order was ex parte and rightly recalled by the Consolidation officer. The counsel for the petitioners submits that Sri Sushil Chandra Mishra advocate was engaged on behalf of respondents-4 and 5 before the Consolidation Officer, who had filed his vakalatnama. A perusal of the order sheet dated 15.6.2009 shows that Sri Sushil Chandra Mishra had signed the order sheet. Thus on the consent of the parties judgment was reserved and it was delivered on 22.9.2009. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties in this respect. A perusal of the order sheet shows that Consolidation Officer used to fix dates for delivery of order from 25.5.2009. Thus, there was no occasion for the parties on 15.6.2009 for arguments as the case was listed for delivery of order throughout. The allegation of the petitioners that as the order dated 15.6.2009 was not signed by Sri Sushil Chandra Mishra although arguments were heard on that day is not liable to be accepted as the case was not listed for argument but was listed for delivery of order. Apart from order sheet dated 10.9.2009 other order-sheets were not signed by the counsel for the respondents and signature on order sheet dated 10.9.2009 has also been denied. In the circumstances of the case, Consolidation Officer set aside the order dated 22.9.2009 and allowed the parties to argue the matter on merit. The impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality. No interference is required by this Court. The writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed.