JUDGMENT : ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this petition, the respondent No. 2 is a transferee pendente lite of respondent No. 5, while respondent No. 3 and 4 are the sons and heirs of respondent No. 5. 3. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that a time barred appeal under Section 11 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act was filed by him. An application was filed therein by the respondent No. 2 that the question of limitation be decided, first. 4. This application was rejected by the Settlement Officer Consolidation but the order has been reversed in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.07.2018 which is impugned in this writ petition. The Settlement Officer Consolidation has been directed to decide the issue of limitation in the appeal as a preliminary issue. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no problem in case the appeal as also the question of condonation of delay involved therein are decided simultaneously. However since the issue of limitation has been directed to be decided as a preliminary issue, by the impugned order, this will unnecessarily prolong the litigation between the parties. Moreover, there exists no provision in the Consolidation of Holdings Act, whereunder, any issue is liable to be decided as a preliminary issue in proceedings under the Act. 6. This Court has earlier decided and identical controversy in Lakhpati vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria & 2 Ors. 2015 (126) Rev Dec 178, and held in paragraph 11 of the judgment as follows:- "11.This Court in the case of Indrajeet Singh, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chandra Sankala Vs. Vikram Cement, 2008 14 SCC 58 , has held that there is no bar on the consolidation authorities to decide preliminary objections along with an appeal or a revision. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, is reproduced below: "The Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement, held that the Law Commission also considered the question and did not favour the tendency of deciding some issues as preliminary issues. Dealing with Rule 2 of Order XIV (before the amendment), the Commission stated: "This Rule has led to one difficulty. Dealing with Rule 2 of Order XIV (before the amendment), the Commission stated: "This Rule has led to one difficulty. Where a case can be disposed of on a preliminary point (issue) of law, often the Courts do not inquire into the merits, with the result that when, on an appeal against the finding on the preliminary issue, the decisions of the Court on that issue is reversed, the case has to be remanded to the Court of first instance for trial on the other issues. This causes delay. It is considered that this delay should be eliminated, by providing that a Court must give judgment on all issues, excepting, of course, where the Court finds that it has no jurisdiction or where the suit is barred by any law for the time being in force." 7. Apart from the fact that the provisions of the Code do not stricto sensu apply to "industrial adjudication", even under the Code, after the Amendment Act, 1976, the normal rule is to decide all the issues together in a civil suit. 8. In the circumstance that procedure of Code of Civil Procedure has not been applied in the proceeding under the Act and in view of the latest pronouncement of Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Sankla's, Manubhai J. Patel's case cannot be followed." 9. Under the circumstances and in view of the decision noticed above, the impugned order is not liable to be sustained. The impugned order is hereby, quashed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation is directed to decide the appeal as also question of condonation of delay simultaneously. The question of condonation of delay is not required to be decided as a preliminary issue. 10. Although some of the respondents in this writ petition are not represented, but in the facts and circumstances of the case and since the mother of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had already sold her interest of the land in issue in favour of the respondent No. 2, he alone appears to a necessary party in this writ petition. Hence this order has been passed without issuing any notice to respondent Nos. 3 to 5. 11. In case any of the unrepresented parties feel aggrieved by this order, it will be open for such aggrieved party to file for recall of this order.