JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri P. V. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of the private respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 09.09.2024 whereby the Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao has disposed of two applications and objections in this regard. 3. In order to put the matter in a presepctive, it is urged by the counsel for the petitioner that the property in question belonged to one Shiv Balak, son of Kanhai. The petitioner being the real nephew of Shiv Balak claimed rights in the property on the basis of succession whereas another claim was put up by the private respondent no.2 who was the niece on the basis of an unregistered Will said to have been executed by Shiv Balak in her favour. 4. The Consolidation Officer in the first instance after hearing the parties did not accede to the evidence led by the respondent no.2 as a consequence the Will dated 08.05.1998 was held to be not proved and the objections of the private respondent no.2 were rejected upholding the claim of the petitioner. 5. The matter was escalated by the respondent no.2 by filing an appeal which found favour with the first appellate court as a consequence the petitioner being aggrieved preferred a revision. While the said revision was pending, the petitioner moved an application dated 19.04.2017 seeking leave of the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned to summon the necessary record from the office of the Registrar as it was stated by the petitioner that the deceased, namely, Shiv Balak had executed certain sale deeds and his thumb expressions and signatures were available in the office of the Sub Registrar and the same can be taken as an evidence of reference to be compared with the signatures/thumb impressions on the alleged Will set up by the private respondent no.2 so that the authenticity of the Will could be clearly established. 6. The said application came to be allowed vide order dated 09.05.2017, a copy of which is on record as annexure no.12. 6. The said application came to be allowed vide order dated 09.05.2017, a copy of which is on record as annexure no.12. However, on the very same day, the private respondent no.2 had moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 09.05.2017 and on the said application itself, an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation recalling the order dated 09.05.2017 and also invited objections to the said application fixing 29.05.2017 as the next date. In the meantime, the private respondent no.2 moved another application dated 13.06.2017 urging the Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the issue of maintainability first. 7. The private respondent no.2 once again on 08.01.2024 moved almost another identical application urging the Deputy Director of Consolidation to consider and decide the issue of maintainability first. 8. The private respondent no.2 had also filed objections against the application moved by the petitioner dated 19.04.2017 i.e. in respect of getting the thumb impressions of the deceased Shiv Balak compared by an hand writing expert. It is in this backdrop that the application dated 13.06.2017, objections dated 17.08.2017 and application dated 08.01.2024 came to be decided by order dated 09.09.2024 which is under challenge. 9. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao rejected the two applications of the private respondent no.2 whereby it was sought that the issue of maintainability of the revision be decided first and in so far as the application preferred by the petitioner for leading expert evidence was concerned, the same was turned down on the premise that the issue of Will was in knowledge of the parties right from the commencement of litigation and since they did not bring any material on record before the court of first instance, hence it was not expedient to permit such evidence at this stage of the revision. 10. Shri Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order dated 09.09.2024 in so far as it relates to the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for leading expert evidence is concerned, states that in the first instance, the application of the petitioner came to be allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by means of order dated 09.05.2017. 11. 11. It is further submitted that even if the application of the private respondent moved on the very same date for recalling of the order is concerned, if seen, would reveal that an order of recall was passed but the same was not signed by the Presiding Officer as such the said order cannot be taken note of. 12. It is submitted that once the order dated 09.05.2017 was maintained, there was no occasion for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have ignored the said order in refusing the right of leading expert evidence to the petitioner and the aforesaid extent the impugned order is bad. He does not challenge the order in so far as it relates to the dismissal of the two applications moved by the private respondent no.2 whereby they had sought the consideration of the issue of maintainability of the revision first. 13. Shri Chaudhary further submits that the issue in question is dependent as to whether the Will said to have been executed by Shiv Balak was genuine or not and the best way forward to get the issue decided finally was to get the signatures/thumb impressions of Shiv Balak as available on the alleged Will set up by the private respondent no.2 and get it compared with the sale deed which was executed by Shiv Balak including his thumb impressions/signatures which were appended in the register available in the Sub Registrar Office recording the registration of the sale deed and in such circumstances, once the Deputy Director of Consolidation had exercised its positive discretion as reflected in the order dated 09.05.2017, it was not appropriate for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have ignored the same in the subsequent order dated 09.09.2024, consequently, the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. 14. Shir Manoj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no.2 submits that first and foremost the order which is being relied upon by the petitioner dated 09.05.2017 stood recalled on the very same day as evident from the copy of the order which has been brought on record as annexure no.13. In this view of the matter, all that transpires is the fact that the application of the petitioner was still open to be considered on its own merit and the private respondent no.2 had filed his objections to the said application. 15. In this view of the matter, all that transpires is the fact that the application of the petitioner was still open to be considered on its own merit and the private respondent no.2 had filed his objections to the said application. 15. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao considering the application as well as the objections of the private respondent no.2 recorded cogent reason for disallowing the said application specifically noticing that the evidence which was sought to be brought on record should have been done in the court of first instance which was not done and therefore it was not expedient to permit the petitioner to lead evidence at the stage of revision where the matter had already gone through a grind before the court of Consolidation Officer as well as the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, in such circumstances, the order impugned cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 17. Certain facts which are undisputed are:- (i) the Will was placed by the private respondent no.2 before the court of Consolidation Officer and after leading due evidence, it did not find favour and the claim on the basis of the Will was rejected. The private respondent no.2 filed an appeal which was allowed, against which the petitioner had preferred the revision which is pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Unnao; (ii) the application moved by the petitioner, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure no.11 indicates that a bare averments have been made regarding the petitioner be permitted to lead expert evidence. However, there is nothing brought on record which could indicate that any reason was ascribed by the petitioner for reason why the said application could not be moved before the trial court or the first appellate court; (iii) the application in question was not even supported by an affidavit nor the documents from which the signatures were sought to be compared were filed before the revisional court; (iv) the said application dated 19.04.2017 came to be allowed on 09.05.2017 and on the very same date, the private respondent no.2 had moved an application for recall upon which the Deputy Director of Consolidation concerned had passed an order on the said application recalling the order passed earlier on the same date, but the said order is not signed. 18. In light of the aforesaid admitted facts, the issue for consideration would be the validity of the alleged order dated 09.05.2017 passed on the application for recall which was not signed by the court concerned. In case if it is found that the said order was valid, then apparently in subsistence of the order of recall, the application of the petitioner was open to be considered and decided by the Deputy Director of Consolidation afresh which has been done by the impugned order dated 09.09.2024. However, in case if it is found that the order of recall, though not signed by the Presiding Officer, does not have any sanctity, then of course the order allowing the application would continue to subsist and in this light the Deputy Director of Consolidation could not have taken a contrary view vide order dated 09.09.2024 rejecting the said application. 19. In order to consider the aforesaid issue, on the basis of the submissions made by the parties and the material placed before the Court, this Court finds that even though the order dated 09.05.2017 passed on the application for recall moved at the behest of the private respondent no.2 was not signed but there is no denial of the fact that such an application was moved before the Deputy Director of Consolidation upon which the order does subsist. 20. The validity of an order which is admittedly passed but for some reason, may be, inadvertence or otherwise is not signed by the Presiding Officer, its impact can be seen in context with Section 99 CPC. 20. The validity of an order which is admittedly passed but for some reason, may be, inadvertence or otherwise is not signed by the Presiding Officer, its impact can be seen in context with Section 99 CPC. Even though, this Court is conscious of the fact that all provisions of the CPC are not applicable to proceedings done under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 but the fact still remains that the principles as contained in Section 99 CPC can safely be borrowed. 21. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner at no point of time haboured any misconception regarding the said order of recall; inasmuch as it did not take any proceedings forward treating the order allowing his application dated 09.05.2017. The very fact that all matters came to a stand still at the behest of the petitioner upon passing of the order dated 09.05.2017 (the unsigned recall order) the matter remained pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation for consideration of the application afresh. 22. At no given point of time even when the matter was considered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation at a later stage which culminated in the order dated 09.09.2024 any objection was raised by the petitioner that since in the earlier part of the day when the order dated 09.05.2017 was passed, the application of the petitioner stood allowed hence, there was no occasion for the Deputy Director of Consolidation to reconsider the issue, this clearly indicates that both the contesting parties were at consensus ad-idem to the fact that the order dated 09.05.2017 whereby in the earlier point of time, the application of the petitioner was allowed. The said order stood recalled. Thus to this extent, in absence of any controversion from either side, it can safely be presumed that both the parties were contesting the proceedings under the premise that the order dated 09.05.2017 was recalled. 23. Now once the order dated 09.05.2017 stood recalled, the application for leading expert evidence was open to be reconsidered afresh and it is in this backdrop that both the learned counsel for the parties had argued the matter before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao who by the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 rejected the application of the petitioner. 24. 23. Now once the order dated 09.05.2017 stood recalled, the application for leading expert evidence was open to be reconsidered afresh and it is in this backdrop that both the learned counsel for the parties had argued the matter before the Deputy Director of Consolidation Unnao who by the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 rejected the application of the petitioner. 24. In this regard, even though the Deputy Director of Consolidation being the final court of law and fact has conceptually the right to take evidence but the fact remains whether this particular right can be exercised in an omnibus fashion in rhe proceedings or there has to be something more on record to persuade the court of Deputy Director of Consolidation to exercise its discretion in a particular manner. In this light of the matter, if the application moved by the petitioner dated 19.04.2017 is seen as already noticed above, it does not indicate any reason whatsoever as to why the said application came to be filed as late as in April 2017. 25. Without disclosing any bonafide reason and without indicating the necessity to file the application without being supported by an affidavit and without even bringing on record the documents from which the said signatures were sought to be compared. There was no cogent material before the Deputy Director of Consolidation to have formed his subjective satisfaction regarding the necessity of getting the signatures/thumb impressions available on the Will of Shiv Balak compared with the sale deeds/register which is said to have been present in the office of the Sub Registrar. It is in this light that the Deputy Director of Consolidation had rejected the application stating that there are no bonafide expressed by the petitioner as to why the said application or the evidence sought to be led could not be done before the court of first instance. 26. This Court does not find that there is any error in so far as the exercise of discretion is concerned, especially when the said application was bereft of any explanation without the necessary documents accompanying the said application which could enable the Court to form a subjective satisfaction of the matter. 27. Consequently, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is, accordingly, dismissed . Costs are made easy.