JUDGMENT : JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 01.06.2024 which has been passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ambedkar Nagar whereby after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it has rejected the application of the petitioner for vacation of the interim order and has further fixed the matter for final hearing. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had initiated proceedings for rectification/correction of entries wherein an order was passed. The private respondents against the said order had preferred a revision and at the first instance the respondent no. 1 by means of order dated 27.05.2023 had granted the interim order without even calling for any response from the respondents of the revision. As the order was ex-parte and the revision was filed alongwith an application under Section 5 and without condoning the delay the said revision could not be heard on merits to grant an interim order and in the aforesaid context the petitioner had earlier assailed the order dated 27.05.2023 before this Court in Writ (B) No. 1164 of 2023 (Latif Vs. DDC and others). 4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of order dated 10.01.2024 disposed of the petition granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue of maintainability of the revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned and also raise all other objections which the petitioner wanted to agitate. It is in furtherance thereof that the Deputy Director of Consolidation once again after affording an opportunity of hearing taking note of the objections filed by the petitioner has passed the impugned order dated 27.05.2023 whereby the application for vacation of the said order dated 27.05.2023 has been rejected and the revision was found maintainable fixing the matter for further hearing on merits. 5. 5. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Director of Consolidation while passing the impugned order has not considered the fact that the proceedings were time barred and in any case abuse of process of law as the private respondents wanted to keep the matter pending and an order of rectification/correction of entries could not be such which could have prejudiced the rights of the private respondents and in this view of the matter the order impugned is bad. 6. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it could not be disputed by the counsel for the petitioner that at the first instance the order dated 27.05.2023 was assailed before this Court in Writ (B) No. 1164 of 2023 which came to be disposed of by means of order dated 10.01.2024 and the relevant portion of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is being reproduced hereinafter for ease of reference: “7. Having considered the aforesaid, I am of the view that if the petitioner is permitted to prefer an application for vacation of interim order and also to file the objection on issue of maintainability of the revision before the D.D.C. and D.D.C. is directed to decide the same, as per law, within time specified, then in that eventuality, the justice would suffice. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to prefer an application for vacation of interim order dated 27.05.2023, impugned herein, within two weeks from today. In case, such an application is preferred by the petitioner within the aforesaid time, then, the D.D.C. shall consider and dispose of the same by means of reasoned and speaking order after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and after taking note of the law on issue including the judgments referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner passed in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi & Others, SCC Online All 107 as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 445 , expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of preferring the application. 9. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi & Others, SCC Online All 107 as also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Noharlal Verma Vs. District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC 445 , expeditiously, say within a period of two months from the date of preferring the application. 9. Liberty is also granted to the petitioner to raise the issue of maintainability of the revision before the D.D.C. by preferring an objection and in case, such an issue is raised by the petitioner, then, the D.D.C. shall also consider and decide the same, as per law, by means of speaking and reasoned order within the aforesaid period. 10. Petition is disposed of in above terms.” 7. Once the said order had been passed and the matter was remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned and the petitioner had filed his objections on 09.04.2024 which have been considered and the revisional authority has found the revision to be maintainable and also rejected the prayer of vacating the interim order after hearing the parties, apparently, this order is only on the issue of maintainability and by directing the parties to maintain status quo the subject matter has been protected. It cannot be said that any view has been expressed by the authority on merits which can create any cloud over the rights of the parties or any opinion on merits has been expressed. The delay has been condoned and the interim order has been extended. 8. These are the discretionary orders and unless they are patently illegal, this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is slow to intervene, especially when no rights on merits are decided. 9. Noticing that the matter has fixed before the respondent no. 1 on 03.09.2024 this Court taking note of the aforesaid disposes of this petition with a direction to the respondent no. 1 to consider and decide the pending revision as expeditiously as possible on the date fixed and in case if it is not possible then within four weeks thereafter. It is directed that the parties shall co-operate in early hearing and in case if any party tries to misuse the liberty, the authority shall be well within its rights to pass appropriate orders. 10. It is directed that the parties shall co-operate in early hearing and in case if any party tries to misuse the liberty, the authority shall be well within its rights to pass appropriate orders. 10. It is also clarified that this Court has not examined the plea of either of the parties on merits and the revisional authority shall finally decide the revision in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.