JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. 1. Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, Advocate has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party No. 3. The same is taken on record. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Tej Bali Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3. 2. One Shri Quazi Durrej Sattar the brother of the petitioner was alleged to be the owner of land in dispute bearing Gata Nos. 165, 310 and 318 constituted at Village-Mirzapur Uttri, Pargana-Mishrikh, District-Sitapur and was recorded as its tenure holder. He died. The opposite party No. 3-Shifali was recorded in PA-11 as his wife. 3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that father of Late Shri Quazi Durrej Sattar initiated mutation proceedings alleging that the opposite party No. 3-Shifali was not the wife of his son Quazi Durrej Sattar and he was entitled to succeed to the holding of his son. 4. It was pointed out that the alleged marriage of the opposite party No. 3 with Late Shri Quazi Durrej Sattar was the subject-matter of challenge in suit proceedings in Suit No. 3102 of 2019 before the Senior Civil Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Accordingly, the mutation Courts stayed the entry made in PA-11. Being aggrieved the opposite party No. 3 filed an application for vacation of the said interim order which was vacated on 23.4.2018. Being aggrieved the father of the original tenure holder, namely, Abdul Sattar @ Chchabban filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner which was entertained and the order dated 23.4.2018 passed by the Mutation Court was stayed. Subsequently, the revisionist Abdul Sattar @ Chchabban who is the father of the petitioner herein died and an application for substitution was filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 21.8.2019. The revision itself was dismissed on the ground that the order impugned was of interlocutory nature. Against this order the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 25978(M/S) of 2019 which was decided on 20.9.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to move an application for recall of the order dated 21.8.2019 as it was passed ex parte i.e. without hearing the petitioner's Counsel. A consequential direction was issued to the Revisional Court for deciding such application by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks. A consequential direction was issued to the Revisional Court for deciding such application by a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks. In pursuance thereof an application for recall was filed which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.12.2019 and the revision has also been dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the earlier order dated 21.8.2019. 5. Shri Ajeet Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3 was pointedly asked as to whether there was any dispute about the fact that the petitioner is the son of Abdul Sattar @ Chchabban who was the revisionist he very fairly submitted that there was no dispute in this regard. 6. It being so one fails to understand as to how the Revisional Court could have dismissed the substitution application of the petitioner. It clearly erred on this count. It also erred for the reason if the substitution application was dismissed then the revision was liable to be dismissed as abated which has not been done, however, the Court finds merit in the contention of the Re-visional Court that the order impugned before it was of an interlocutory nature and was not liable to be interfered, therefore, to secure the ends of substantial justice the orders impugned in so far as it dismisses the application of the petitioner for substitution is set-aside. The application of the petitioner for substitution in the revision is allowed. The necessary substitution shall be allowed to be made in the revision in pursuance to this order, however, the part of the order by which the revision has been dismissed is sustained in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case with a direction to the Mutation Court to dispose of the mutation proceedings within a period of three months. 7. Till disposal of the mutation proceedings neither of the parties shall alienate the property in question and an entry about this order shall be made in the Khatauni pertaining to the land in dispute referred hereinabove and this fact shall also be informed to the Sub-Registrar concerned by the parties as also by Shri Tej Bali Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel who is present. 8. The petitioner shall get himself substituted in the mutation proceedings in view of this order and thereafter, the proceedings shall be held as aforesaid. 9. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.