JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. – Heard Sri Rajeev Mishra, for the petitioners and Sri J.P. Sharma along with Sri R.B. Tripathi, for the contesting respondents. 2. Writ B No. 3886 of 2011 has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 10.08.2009, rejecting the application of the petitioners for summoning original cheque issued by Ganesh Dixit and 22.02.2010, rejecting second application of the petitioner dated 15.02.2010 for same prayer and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.12.2010, dismissing the revision of the petitioners in the proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). 3. Writ B No. 34525 of 2011 has been filed against the orders of Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 11.04.2011, rejecting the application of the petitioners for summoning Fertilizer Distribution Register, original Cheque and Signature Card of Rajendra Prasad Dixit and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 22.05.2011, dismissing the revision of the petitioners in the aforesaid proceeding. 4. Ganesh Dixit (respondent-3) and Rajendra Prasad Dixit (now represented by respondents-4 to 6) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 2378 of 1995) from the order of Consolidation Officer dated 26.12.1975, along with delay condonation application. Settlement Officer, Consolidation, after hearing the parties, by order dated 28.07.1997 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. This order has been upheld in Writ Petition No. 49438 of 2000, by judgment dated 10.07.2003. 5. Baij Nath Dixit (now represented by the petitioners) filed an application dated 25.06.1996, for obtaining specimen signatures of Ganesh Dixit and Rajendra Prasad Dixit for comparison with their signatures on memorandum of appeal, affidavit and vakalatnama, with the help of report of Handwriting Expert. Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 07.04.2005 directed for considering this application at the time of hearing of the appeal on merit. Revision filed by Baij Nath Dixit against this order was dismissed on 20.09.2005. Writ Petition No. 64305 of 2005 filed by Baij Nath Dixit against aforesaid orders was disposed of on 16.01.2006. 6. While hearing the appeal, Baij Nath Dixit pressed his application dated 25.06.1996. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 14.07.2006, directed for taking specimen signatures of Ganesh Dixit and Rajendra Prasad Dixit for comparison with their signatures on memorandum of appeal, affidavit and vakalatnama, with the help of report of Handwriting Expert. This order was recalled on 01.09.2006. 6. While hearing the appeal, Baij Nath Dixit pressed his application dated 25.06.1996. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 14.07.2006, directed for taking specimen signatures of Ganesh Dixit and Rajendra Prasad Dixit for comparison with their signatures on memorandum of appeal, affidavit and vakalatnama, with the help of report of Handwriting Expert. This order was recalled on 01.09.2006. Deputy Director of Consolidation allowed the revision of Baij Nath Dixit on 10.01.2007 and set aside order dated 01.09.2006. In the meantime, Rajendra Prasad Dixit died. The petitioner then moved another application on 27.01.2007 for summoning Register No. 8 from the office of Sub-Registrar relating to sale deed dated 28.04.1994, executed by Baij Nath, Rajendra and Ganesh, for the purposes of expert examination report. Baij Nath Dixit moved another application on 17.03.2007 for summoning Withdrawal Form of Rajendra Prasad Dixit from State Bank of India, branch Barhaj. Baij Nath Dixit moved another application on 20.07.2007, for summoning Signature Card and Cheque No. 165911 of Rajendra Prasad Dixit and Fertilizer Distribution Register of the year 1989 from Sadhan Sahakari Samit, Bara. Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 26.05.2008 directed that aforementioned applications would be decided while deciding the appeal on merit. However, this order was set aside by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 24.01.2009 in the revision filed by the petitioners. The respondents filed Writ Petition No. 8575 of 2009, in which operation of the order dated 24.01.2009 was stayed and Settlement Officer Consolidation was directed to proceed according to previous orders dated 16.01.2006 and 20.11.2007. 7. In the meantime, Expert reports in respect of signatures of Ganesh Dixit was submitted by both the parties. Settlement Officer, Consolidation fixed 06.07.2009 for recording statements of Experts and declined to obtain expert report of signatures of Rajendra Prasad Dixit. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 651 of 2009, before Lucknow Bench which was disposed of by order dated 11.11.2009, directing Settlement Officer Consolidation to summon the appellant and enquire from him as to whether he had filed the appeal or not and grounds of appeal and vakalatnana bore his signatures or not and then after recording his statement, he would proceed to decide the issue raised by the petitioners. 8. The petitioners again moved an application dated 06.07.2009, for summoning original Cheque Nos. 8. The petitioners again moved an application dated 06.07.2009, for summoning original Cheque Nos. 873063 and 873064 of Rajendra Prasad Dixit from State Bank of India, branch Barhaj, for the reason that expert had taken photographs of the signature from photostat copy and not from its original. This application was rejected by Settlement Officer Consolidation on 10.08.2009. The petitioners filed a revision against aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on 24.12.2010. These orders are challenged in Writ B No. 3886 of 2011. 9. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 39934 of 2009, for mandamus directing Settlement Officer Consolidation to obtain expert examination report of the signatures of Rajendra Prasad Dixit and decide the applications dated 25.06.1996 and 26.06.1996, before deciding the appeal on merit. This writ petition was directed to be listed along with Writ Petition No. 8575 of 2009. Both these writ petitions were dismissed by separate orders dated 29.03.2010. 10. The petitioners again moved two applications on 15.02.2010, for summoning original cheque of Ganesh Dixit from State Bank of India branch Barhaj and recalling him for cross examination. These applications were rejected by Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 22.02.2010. The petitioners filed a revision against aforesaid order. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision on 24.12.2010. The petitioners filed an application in Writ Petition No. 651 of 2009, for clarification of order dated 11.11.2009, which was rejected on 08.04.2011. Settlement Officer, Consolidation held that in compliance of the order of High Court dated 11.11.2009, statement of Ganesh Dixit was recorded, who admitted filing of the appeal by him and his brother Rajendra Prasad Dixit. No fresh order is required on the application of the petitioners dated 20.07.2007 and rejected it on 11.04.2011. Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed the revision of the petitioners, filed against the aforesaid order, on 27.05.2011. These orders are challenged in Writ B No. 34525 of 2011, in which further proceeding in appeal of the respondents has been stayed on 21.06.2011. 11. The counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that this Court by order dated 11.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 651 of 2009, directed Settlement Officer Consolidation to summon the appellants and enquire from him as to whether he had filed the appeal or not and ground of appeal and vakalatnana bore his signature or not and after recording his statement, he would proceed to decide the issue raised by the petitioners. By impugned orders, consolidation authorities have rejected the applications of the petitioners without deciding the issues raised by the petitioners. Rajendra Prasad Dixit and Ganesh Dixit entered into compromise before Consolidation Officer and on the basis of compromise, the order was passed on 26.12.1975. The appeal was filed on 10.05.1995, after about 20 years of the order passed by Consolidation Officer, by some imposter. It is imperative that genuineness and veracity of the appeal be decided so that the petitioners be saved from contesting vexatious litigation. Impugned orders are illegal and liable to be set aside. 12. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. 13. I am very much shocked with such type of litigation, where the petitioners have easily delayed hearing of the appeal for 21 years, although in consolidation, the appeal and revisions are decided summarily. Writ Petition No. 64305 of 2005, filed by Baij Nath Dixit against the orders by which his applications dated 25.06.1996 was directed to be decided along with appeal, was dismissed by this Court by order dated 16.01.2006. Even then for similar reliefs the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 56896 of 2007, Writ Petition No. 651 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 39934 of 2009, Writ Petition No. 3886 of 2011 and Writ Petition No. 34525 of 2011. Writ Petition No. 651 of 2009 was filed before Lucknow Bench of this Court, from where they had secured some favourable order, although Lucknow Bench has no jurisdiction for district Deoria. They filed several applications and revisions for the same reliefs. This is not only an extreme harassment of the respondents but also wasting precious time of the Courts. Settlement Officer, Consolidation, in the order dated 11.04.2011 held that in compliance of order of High Court dated 11.11.2009, statement of Ganesh Dixit was recorded, who admitted filing of the appeal by him and his brother Rajendra Prasad Dixit. No fresh order is required on the application of the petitioners dated 20.07.2007 and rejected it. If one of the appellant admits filing of the appeal, then no further inquiry in this respect is required as he alone can challenge the order impugned in appeal and press it. Issues raised by the petitioners relating to veracity of the appeal stands decided. If one of the appellant admits filing of the appeal, then no further inquiry in this respect is required as he alone can challenge the order impugned in appeal and press it. Issues raised by the petitioners relating to veracity of the appeal stands decided. Even then, thrust of the petitioners was not satisfied and they challenged the orders, in revisions and writ petitions, not for examining veracity of the appeal but for harassing of the appellants and delaying the proceeding. 14. I can imagine that more than 10 lakhs cases are pending before this Court. If in every case, the respondent challenged veracity of the petition or the petitioner challenged veracity of the counter affidavit then, certainly this Court will take at least 20 years in deciding these applications and disposal of cases on merit will be held up. This is an alarming situation. The courts should out rightly reject such applications with costs unless the appellant or his legal representative challenge the veracity or there is strong suspicion relating to veracity of filing of such litigation. These vexatious applications take valuable time of the Court, although during a lessor time, the case can be decided finally. 15. Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 , took notice of such steps of the litigants and held that it is a typical example of how a litigation proceeds and continues and in the end there is a profit for the wrongdoer. The learned amicus curiae articulated the common man's general impression about litigation in following words: "Make any false averment, conceal any fact, raise any plea, produce any false document, deny any genuine document, it will successfully stall the litigation, and in any case, delay the matter endlessly. The other party will be coerced into a settlement which will be profitable for me and the probability of the court ordering prosecution for perjury is less than that of meeting with an accident while crossing the road." 16. Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 , observed that for many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 , observed that for many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahimsa" (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 17. Baij Nath Dixit (including his heirs) is challenging veracity of his real brothers with ulterior motives. They also adopted unfair means inasmuch as although Lucknow Bench has no territorial jurisdiction over subject matter but Writ Petition No. 651 of 2009 was filed before Lucknow Bench and favourable order was obtained in it. Their conduct shows that they have no courage to argue the appeal on merit. As observed by Supreme Court, they are harassing and coercing real brothers, for a settlement which would be profitable for them. Such a conduct of the petitioners are deprecated. Although these petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs but I abstain from imposing costs due to previous orders passed by this Court. 18. In view of aforesaid discussions, both the writ petitions are dismissed. All the applications of the petitioners filed in the appeal, challenging veracity of the appeal as well as for collecting evidence to decide it, are rejected. Interim order dated 21.06.2011 is vacated. 18. In view of aforesaid discussions, both the writ petitions are dismissed. All the applications of the petitioners filed in the appeal, challenging veracity of the appeal as well as for collecting evidence to decide it, are rejected. Interim order dated 21.06.2011 is vacated. Settlement Officer Consolidation shall proceed to decide the appeal on merit after hearing the parties, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, preferably within a period of four months 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 appellate court on 03.10.2016. Thereafter the appellate court will summon the records, fix a date for final arguments in appeal with the convenience of the parties and proceed to decide it on merit. Petitions Dismissed.