JUDGMENT : Attau Rahman Masoodi, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Vashudeo Mishra learned Counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No. 3. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Barabanki on 24.4.2018 in the revision filed under section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which arose out of the judgment/order rendered by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 13.1.2015 in appeal Nos. 427/738 and 420/719/1340. 3. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation by order dated 13.1.2015 had set aside the order passed by the Consolidation Officer on 18.9.2013 and accepted the petitioner's claim on the basis of Will executed by late Babu son of late Bhagu on 16.8.2005. 4. The claim of the petitioner set up before the Consolidation Officer on the strength of Will deed was that Babu son of late Bhagu was suffering from leprosy and his daughter Nirmala Devi died some time in the year 1990. In the year 1993, the petitioner along with her husband Ram Khelawan came to look after Babu and had resided with him at his residence. It was out of love and affection that Babu son of late Bhagu had executed a Will in favour of the petitioner bequeathing his property in her favour. 5. The Will aforesaid has already been challenged before the Civil Court by the opposite party No. 3 and one Kesaw Ram. It may also be noted that the appeal filed by Kesaw Ram against the order passed by Consolidation Officer on 18.9.2013 was rejected by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation i.e. Appeal No. 420/719/1340 by the same very order dated 13.1.2015 mentioned above and the revision arising therefrom was also rejected by means of the impugned order dated 24.4.2018. Since the case of Kesaw Ram Stands on a different footing, hence he is not impleaded in the present petition. 6. The case set up by opposite party No. 3 against the Will deed is that the same is in nature of a voidable document which was executed by late Babu under undue influence. 7. Since the case of Kesaw Ram Stands on a different footing, hence he is not impleaded in the present petition. 6. The case set up by opposite party No. 3 against the Will deed is that the same is in nature of a voidable document which was executed by late Babu under undue influence. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if such a plea advanced by opposite party No. 3 is entertained, the jurisdiction of declaring a Will as voidable, by virtue of section 31 of Specific Relief Act, is conferred upon the civil Court, therefore, the Consolidation Court cannot travel to the extent of recording a finding on the validity of Will of which the sanctity itself is sub-judice between the parties in a civil proceeding. 8. For ready reference, section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is extracted below:- "31. When cancellation may be ordered.- (1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the Court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled. (2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the Court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation". 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that it is only a void document which the consolidation Courts can give effect to for the purposes of adjudication of claims but a finding as to the validity of voidable documents unless recorded by the civil Court would not enable the consolidation Court to accept the conveyance as valid. 10. This Court from the objections raised by opposite party No. 3 before the Consolidation Officer would gather that essentially the objection against the Will is of treating the same to be a voidable document of which the legality is subject in the suit. 11. 10. This Court from the objections raised by opposite party No. 3 before the Consolidation Officer would gather that essentially the objection against the Will is of treating the same to be a voidable document of which the legality is subject in the suit. 11. The observations made by the Consolidation Officer recognizing the Will to be valid was thus not open to be recorded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation so long as the civil suit was pending and the rights of parties had not crystallized. 12. The submission put-forth by learned Counsel for the petitioner in the backdrop of section 31 of Specific Relief Act has force and deserves acceptance. That apart, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the revisional jurisdiction in the present case being vested in the Collector has wrongly been exercised by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial). 13. The submission put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has force, inasmuch as, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has clearly been defined under section 4-A of the Consolidation of Holdings Act and District Deputy Director of Consolidation by virtue of section 4-B of the Act means a Collector alone. 14. This Court while dealing with the impugned orders under writ jurisdiction can not travel to the extent of validity of Will particularly when the civil suit between the parties is pending. 15. Thus, the findings recorded by the Consolidation Court in the impugned order giving rise to the present writ petition are restricted to be understood within the scope of section 68 of the Evidence Act and the suit on the aspect of validity of Will may proceed to record the findings having regard to the evidence filed by the parties. 16. Since the findings and observations made in the impugned orders are subject to the outcome of the civil suit challenging the validity of the Will, hence, in the interest of justice, parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo and they shall not alienate the property in dispute in the meanwhile. 17. This order shall abide by the outcome of the suit proceedings. 18. The petition is accordingly disposed of.