JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 01.12.2022 whereby, the opposite party No.1- District Deputy Director of Consolidation on an application preferred by the private respondents directed that the document(s) i.e. "Will" dated 06.04.1978 and sale deed 05.04.1978 be sent to F.S.L. for expert opinion for the purpose of verification of genuineness of "thumb impression" of Ram Pyari over the "Will" in issue that. 3. On 09.01.2023, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite parties as also taking note of the relevant provisions of the relevant Act namely, section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short "Act of 1925") and section 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "Act of 1872"), this Court passed the interim order. The same on the production reads as under:- Sri Nripendra Mishra, Advocate has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6, which is taken on record. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the private opposite parties. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by opposite party no. 1-District Deputy Director of Consolidation (D.D.D.C.)/ Collector Shrawasti, in Case No. 40 of 2022 Computer case No. D202208620000040 under Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioner that name of petitioner was mutated in the revenue record regarding the land/property in dispute i.e. Gata No. 218 situated at Village Madhwapur Pergana Tulsipur, District Shrawasti and Gata No. 131 situated at Village Babhuni, Pargana Tulsipur District Shrawasti.Thereafter, an application was moved for mutation on 25.11.1980. This application was based upon adoption deed dated 24.12.1976. This application for mutation was rejected on 21.12.1981 and being aggrieved by this order the applicant Brahma Kumar alias Govardhan filed an appeal under Section 210 of Land Revenue Act, which was also rejected on merits by Pargana Adhikari Bhinga, vide order dated 30.07.1983. Both these orders were challenged by one Brahma Kumar alias Govardhan by means of revision filed before the Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal Faizabad now Ayodhaya. Both these orders were challenged by one Brahma Kumar alias Govardhan by means of revision filed before the Commissioner, Faizabad Mandal Faizabad now Ayodhaya. It is further stated that during the pendency of the revision, the proceedings of Consolidation were initiated after notification under Section 4 of Holdings Act, 1953. During the consolidation proceedings initiated under the Act of 1953, Brahma Kumar alias Govardhan filed the objection based upon the adoption deed and another objection based upon the will, was filed by the predecessor in interest Sri Pateshwari Prasad, Kasiram alias Niber and Nanku Prasad.The Consolidation Officer Bhinga, rejected the objections vide order dated 07.06.2019 on merits. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, which was also rejected on merits vide order dated 25.11.2021. Against these orders the revision was filed before Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti, wherein the impugned order has been passed. It is further stated that before the Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti, an application was moved by the revisionistprivate opposite parties herein, to verify the signatures of testator on the will, which as per the procedure prescribed under Evidence Act particularly Section 68 and 69 of the Act, the revisionist were failed to prove before the concerned consolidation court. This application was moved on the basis of signature of testator alleged to have been available on the sale deed executed in favour of the revisionist for the same property. .D.C. To the said application, detailed objection was filed, however, without considering the objection, the order impugned has been passed. As such the indulgence of this Court is required. Considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the private opposite parties and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel appearing for the State, this Court feels tht the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner prima-facie appears to be correct. Matter requires consideration. Sri Nripendra Mishra, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 is directed to file response to the present petition within a week. In the meantime, learned State Counsel may also file counter affidavit. Issue notice to opposite party no. 5. Steps be taken within seven days. List this case week commencing 23.01.2023 as fresh. Till the next date of listing, operation and implementation of order dated 01.12.2022 passed by Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti, shall remain stayed." 4. In the meantime, learned State Counsel may also file counter affidavit. Issue notice to opposite party no. 5. Steps be taken within seven days. List this case week commencing 23.01.2023 as fresh. Till the next date of listing, operation and implementation of order dated 01.12.2022 passed by Collector/District Deputy Director of Consolidation Shravasti, shall remain stayed." 4. Today, when the case was called out, the counsel for the side opposite could not dispute that as per law in the issue, the "Will" has to be proved after taking note of the provisions as envisaged under Section 63 of the Act of 1925 and Section 68 and other relevant section(s) of Act of 1872. However, he says though the expert opinion is a weak piece of evidence but to verify the "thumb impression" over the "Will", the expert opinion can be obtained by District Deputy Director of Consolidation / Collector Shravasti, in exercise of power under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 ("in short Act of 1953"), as such the order is justified and being so is not liable to be interfered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner based upon the judgement of this Court passed in the Writ B No.23043 of 2020, Ghuru And Others v. Additional District Magistrate Finance/Revenue Kheri And Others says that "Will" can only be proved as per the procedure prescribed under the relevant provisions and no other method can be adopted by the authority concerned. 6. The issue involved in the present petition is to the effect that as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation-respondent No.1 was justified in passing the order impugned whereby the sale deed dated 05.04.1978 and will date 06.04.1978, in issue, have been ordered to be sent for forensic science laboratory for expert opinion for the purposes of verification genuineness of "thumb impression" of Ram Pyari owner of the "Will" in issue. 7. In regard to aforesaid, it would be profitable to refer the judgement of this Court passed in Anar Devi Wife of Late Shri Baburam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation 2006 (2) AWC 1847 and in Anar Devi Wife Of Late Shri Baburam v. Deputy Director Of Consolidation reported in 2006 SCC Online All 189. The relevant portion of the judgement on production reads as under:- "5. The relevant portion of the judgement on production reads as under:- "5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not contain any reason. Impugned order does not give details of thumb impression of which document required to be sent for examination by expert. He further urged that no such order could be passed at the stage of revision when revisionist did not file any application before the Consolidation Officer. No application was moved by the Opp. party No. 2 along with his affidavit to Deputy Director of Consolidation making such prayer. Permitting to get examined thumb impression by expert amounts creation of additional evidence in order to fill the gap or remove lacuna which is not permissible in the facts and circumstances of the case at appellate or revisional stage. 6. In reply to the same, learned Counsel for caveator relying upon an affidavit (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) filed by petitioner No. 1 urged that in view of the averments made in the affidavit, impugned order was rightly passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in accordance with law permitting revisionist to get examined thumb impression by the expert. 7. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Counsel for Caveator and also carefully considered the materials on record. 8. As registered will relied upon by the petitioners was found by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer, Consolidation to be a genuine document on the basis of the reasons recorded in their respective orders, without expressing any opinion on merits in the facts of the case where the revision is still pending, the only question arises to be considered is whether at the revisional stage Deputy Director of Consolidation was competent to admit additional evidence in the form of expert's opinion. Though the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to consolidation proceedings, but the settled principles of Civil Procedure Code will be applicable in trial, appeal and revision in the title proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Though the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to consolidation proceedings, but the settled principles of Civil Procedure Code will be applicable in trial, appeal and revision in the title proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. This question was considered earlier by this Court in a judgement reported in 1993 LL.L.J. 769 Sheo Pujanb v. Deputy Director of Consolidation relevant paragraphs of which are being reproduced below: 6...The only question, therefore, which remains for consideration is as to whether the Deputy Director of Consolidation, respondent No. 1 was justified in holding that in the proceedings under the provisions of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act there could be no justification for permitting expert evidence to be brought on record.... 7...The question about the jurisdiction of the consolidation authority to admit additional evidence had come up for consideration before the court in the case of Bihari v. State, decided by the Division Bench reported in 1973 Rev. Dec. 342 wherein the principles enunciated in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arbind Kumar Singh v. Nand Kishore Prasad reported in AIR 1968 SC 1227 were held applicable to the proceedings under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. There can be no justification for not applying the said principles to the proceedings under Section 11 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act which contemplates vesting of a jurisdiction on the appellate authority which cannot be held to be lesser than the jurisdiction envisaged under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. I may, however, add in this connection that the salutary principles contained in Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure should be kept in mind while exercising the discretion to entertain the additional evidence at the appellate or revisional stage. 8...The power to admit additional evidence, however, at appellate or revisory stage, has to be exercised with care and caution. The rule indicated above does not authorise the admission of additional evidence for the purpose of removing lacuna and filling in gaps in evidence. Additional evidence can be admitted, if the appellate court finds it needful and necessary for enabling it to pronounce judgement. The rule indicated above does not authorise the admission of additional evidence for the purpose of removing lacuna and filling in gaps in evidence. Additional evidence can be admitted, if the appellate court finds it needful and necessary for enabling it to pronounce judgement. The principles contained in order XLI Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code are general principles of universal application, aimed at securing justice which should be kept in mind while exercising the judicial discretion to admit additional evidence at appellate or revisional stage.... 9. Above judgement and other case laws on the point referred that in case of production or creation of additional evidence, the principles of Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code would be applicable in consolidation proceeding also, the same are being reproduced below for ready reference: 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if- (a) the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence; be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgement, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by an Appellate Court, the Court shall record the reason for its admission. 10. Additional evidence could be taken at the Appellate/revisional stage if an application was filed to adduce additional evidence before the Trial court and same was refused to be admitted as additional evidence which ought to have been admitted. As Opp. party No. 2 did not move any application before Consolidation Officer to admit additional evidence by way of expert's opinion at revisional stage and as such first condition under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code is not available in the present case. 11. As Opp. party No. 2 did not move any application before Consolidation Officer to admit additional evidence by way of expert's opinion at revisional stage and as such first condition under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code is not available in the present case. 11. There is no averment in affidavit that thumb impression on which document was not within knowledge of Opp. party No. 2 and after exercise of due diligence same could not be produced by him at the time when the order was passed by Consolidation Officer. Affidavit filed by Opp. party No. 2 did not make out any of ground as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code. There is also no material on record to show that the document was not within the knowledge of Opp. party No. 2 or could not be produced even after exercise of due diligence before Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer, Consolidation. In case the document was already on record and no such application was moved by Opp. party No. 2 to get examined the thumb impression contained on the registered will executed in favour of petitioners by expert, no such application could be entertained at Appellate/revisional stage and as such the second ground for production of additional evidence by examining thumb impression by expert is also not available to Opp. party No. 2. 12. There is also no such finding in the order that the appellate court/revisional court require any such document to be produced to enable appellate court/revisional court to pronounce the judgement and in absence of any such finding in the order of appellate court/revisional court, third ground as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code be also not available to Opp. party No. 2. 13. Thus, it is clear that none of the grounds as contemplated under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for admitting additional evidence at Revisional stage as expert opinion on Thumb impression of Ram Chandra is available to Opp. party No. 2. The Revisional Court wrongly and illegally passed the impugned order permitting Opp. party No. 2 to get examined thumb of impression of late Ram Chandra by expert at revisional stage. Deputy Director of Consolidation did not record any reason for permitting additional evidence in the form of expert's opinion at revisional stage. party No. 2. The Revisional Court wrongly and illegally passed the impugned order permitting Opp. party No. 2 to get examined thumb of impression of late Ram Chandra by expert at revisional stage. Deputy Director of Consolidation did not record any reason for permitting additional evidence in the form of expert's opinion at revisional stage. Deputy Director of Consolidation being the final court under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could permit additional evidence if any Of the grounds as contained under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was attracted and reasons were recorded in this regard permitting additional evidence as an expert's opinion at revisional stage. As the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not contain any reason, this is an additional ground for setting aside the impugned order. 14. In view of the discussions made above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.1.2006, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Agra is quashed. As revision is pending for the last about 20 years, Revisional authority is directed to decide the revision in accordance with law on the basis of the materials already on record within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. 15. No order as to cost." 8. In the instant case, sale deed dated 05.04.1978 and "Will" dated 06.04.1978, in issue, were placed on record before the Consolidation Officer and at relevant time, no application seeking expert opinion was preferred by Pateshwari Prasad, father of opposite party Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 and others, who filed the objection(s) before the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 9. It would be appropriate to refer here that the case of Pateshwari Prasad, Nankau Prasad and Kashiram, all sons of Ram Dulare before the Consolidation Officer was based upon the "Will" dated 06.04.1978 and the case of opposite party No.8-Braham Kumar was based upon "adoption deed" dated 24.12.1976. To prove the will before Consolidation Officer, witnesses were produced. However, after considering the statement(s) of the witnesses so produced by the concerned, the Consolidation Officer observed that the execution of the "Will" has not been proved. 10. To prove the will before Consolidation Officer, witnesses were produced. However, after considering the statement(s) of the witnesses so produced by the concerned, the Consolidation Officer observed that the execution of the "Will" has not been proved. 10. The Consolidation Officer after observing that the "Will" has not been proved and rejected the objection filed by Pateshwari Prasad, Nankau Prasad and Kashiram, all sons of Ram Dulare, which was based upon the "Will" as also the application/objection dated 27.04.2018 preferred by Brahm Kumar-opposite party No.8, as appears from the order of Consolidation Officer Bhinga, District-Shravasti dated 07.06.2019. 11. The order dated 07.06.2019 was challenged before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation by preferring the appeal and vide order dated 25.11.2021, the Settlement Officer Consolidation, District-Shravasti affirmed the order of Consolidation Officer dated 07.06.2019. At this stage also, no application seeking expert opinion was preferred by the concerned. 12. It would be apt to point out that the order dated 07.06.2019 was challenged in Appeal No.141 filed by Pateshwari Prasad and others as also in Appeal No.134 filed by Brahm Kumar under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1953 and both these appeals were rejected by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahraich/Shravasti vide order dated 25.11.2021. 13. Aforesaid orders dated 17.06.2019 and 25.11.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer of Consolidation are in issue before Revisional Authority, namely, Deputy Director of Consolidation, Shravasti-opposite party No.1 in the revision filed under Section 48 of the Act of 1953, registered as Case No.40 of 2022, Computerized Case No. D202208620000040, (Chandra Shekhar & Others v. Virendra & Others). At this belated stage, application seeking expert opinion was preferred, which has been allowed by respondent No.1 vide order dated 01.12.2022, which is impugned herein. 14. From the aforesaid facts, in brief, it is apparent that documents, which have been ordered to be sent for examination for the purposes of verification of "thumb impression" of Ram Pyari were on record and at relevant stage, no such application was preferred. Thus, taking additional evidence by way of expert opinion at revisional stage to the view of this Court, in the light of observations made in the judgement referred here-in-above, is not proper, as such, the order impugned is unsustainable in the eye of law. Thus, taking additional evidence by way of expert opinion at revisional stage to the view of this Court, in the light of observations made in the judgement referred here-in-above, is not proper, as such, the order impugned is unsustainable in the eye of law. Moreover, in the order impugned the reasons, as required in the light of Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C., have not been indicated for the purposes of allowing the application and sending relevant documents to Forensic Science Laboratory for seeking expert opinion regarding "thumb impression" of Ram Pyari. Thus, for the reasons the order impugned is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 15. With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed.