JUDGMENT : ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Sachida Nand Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ramesh Chandra Mishra for the respondent no.3, the sole contesting respondent. 2. By means of this writ petition, which arises out of an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.01.2015 passed by the Consolidation Officer allowing an impleadment application, filed by respondent no.3. 3. The order dated 05.11.2016, whereby the petitioner's application for recall of the order dated 17.01.2015 has been rejected and the order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, whereby the consequential revision filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dated 17.01.2015 and 05.11.2016, has been rejected, are also impugned. 4. Indra Pari Devi, the mother of the petitioner filed an objection under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act challenging the basic year entry in favour of Ram Ujagar, Ram Vilash and Nalin Kant regarding plot no.247 of Khata No.6 situated in village Malav, Tappa Kauswasi, Pargana Bhauwapar, Tehsil Basgaon, District Gorakhpur. 5. It appears that the objector Indra Pari Devi died on 15.02.1994. On an application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner and his brother Vipin Kumar Pandey as well as six daughters of Savitri Devi, were ordered to be substituted in her place, vide order dated 03.01.2002. 6. On 20.04.2013, an impleadment application was filed by the respondent no.3, claiming on the basis of an unregistered will, executed by Indra Pari Devi in his favour, whereunder 2/3 share of Indra Pari Devi's land was bequeathed the respondent no.3 while remaining 1/3 share was bequeathed to her natural heirs, including the petitioners. 7. The Consolidation Officer, vide order dated 17.01.2015, allowed the impleadment application, although, copy of this order dated 17.01.2015 is not filed on record of this petition. 8. It is alleged that on the same day, an application for recall of the order allowing the impleadment application was filed primarily on the ground that the will had not been produced by the person seeking impleadment. 9. 8. It is alleged that on the same day, an application for recall of the order allowing the impleadment application was filed primarily on the ground that the will had not been produced by the person seeking impleadment. 9. The Consolidation Officer vide order dated 05.11.2016, rejected the recall application on the ground that since respondent no.3 had been impleaded as an objector along with the natural heirs of Indra Pari Devi, the same would not affect the merits of the objection, which was yet to be decided after parties had led their evidence and had been duly heard. It was also observed that in any case, the copy of the will had, since been filed on record. 10. Aggrieved by the two orders aforesaid, the petitioner preferred a revision, which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.12.2018 finding that no copy of the order dated 17.01.2015 impugned in the revision had been filed by the revisionist. In so far as, the order dated 05.11.2016 is concerned, it was observed that the same was not a final order, but an interlocutory order, against which, a revision was not maintainable. 11. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the impleadment application had been allowed without copy of the will being available on record. In any case, the copy which has been filed subsequently, is a forged and anti timed document which had been filed without serving its copy upon the petitioner. 12. It is also contended that since in the impleadment application, the date of death of Indra Pari Devi was not disclosed neither was the date of the will itself, disclosed, the same goes to show that the will is forged and anti dated. 13. It is also vehemently contended by counsel for the petitioners that the impleadment application could not have been allowed without the will having been filed and proved in accordance with law and therefore, the orders impugned are vitiated. 14. He has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court dated 20.11.2018 in the Matters Under Article 227 No.7434 of 2017, Narbdeshwar and two others Vs. Ram Naresh Chaudhari. 15. Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned orders. 16. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. 14. He has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court dated 20.11.2018 in the Matters Under Article 227 No.7434 of 2017, Narbdeshwar and two others Vs. Ram Naresh Chaudhari. 15. Counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the impugned orders. 16. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the record. 17. It is admitted on record that the petitioner and the proforma respondent no.4 in this writ petition are the natural heirs of the original objector, Indra Pari Devi. The respondent no.3, who has been impleaded along with the natural heirs of the objector claims on the basis of the will allegedly executed by the objector, whereunder 2/3 of her estate has been bequeathed upon respondent no.3 while the remaining 1/3 share has been bequeathed upon her natural heirs. 18. In the context of aforementioned factual position, it would be relevant to refer to the following portion of the judgment cited where the Court after referring to various decisions of the Apex Court has summarized the legal position under heads A,B,C,D and E. For the purposes of the instant case, head 'D' alone is relevant and the same is extracted below- (d) Where a person sets up a Will of a deceased party to claim substitution, and there are other natural heirs of the deceased party already on record or brought on record, to avoid unnecessary delay that might be caused on account of an enquiry as regards legality and validity of the Will, he may be impleaded along with other natural heirs of the deceased party even without a thorough enquiry as regards validity and legality of the Will, though subject to final determination of the rights of the parties in regular probate proceedings. Likewise, where a sole natural heir or one of the natural heirs of the deceased party is also a legatee of the deceased party, he may be impleaded as legal representative of the deceased party even without a thorough enquiry as regards validity or legality of the will." 19. The above extract, in my opinion, is a complete answer to the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. 20. In my considered opinion, the impugned order is in consonance with the extracted portion of the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner. 21. The above extract, in my opinion, is a complete answer to the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. 20. In my considered opinion, the impugned order is in consonance with the extracted portion of the judgment cited by counsel for the petitioner. 21. However, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the extracted portion may be modified slightly. It has been observed in the judgment cited that legality of the will should be subject to the final determination of the rights of the parties in regular probate proceedings. This observation may have been relevant in the case that was being decided. However, the instant writ petition arises out of regular title proceedings. It is also the settled legal position that a will, which does not pertain to property lying outside the area of the Presidency Towns, is not mandatorily required to be probated in view of Section 57 read with Section 213(2) (i) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Such a will can always be proved in collateral proceedings, also. Therefore, the will which is the bone of the contention at the moment is liable to be proved in accordance with the law in the pending proceedings, itself. 22. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned orders do not call for any interference. 23. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the observation that the mere fact that the impleadment application of the respondent no.3 has been allowed and thereby he has been permitted to represent the estate of the deceased, the same shall not mean that he is an heir of the deceased original objector, Indra Pari Devi, until and unless, the will relied upon by him, is proved in accordance with law in the pending proceedings.