Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12837 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 192 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Naresh And Others Respondent :- Consolidation Officer, Antim Abhilekh, Sadar, Sultanpur And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bajrang Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. The petitioners claim the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the Opposite Party No.1 not to examine the oral evidence regarding Vanshavali/ Shijra of Prabhu and Narayan, which is already decided by order dated 02.12.2024, passed by the Opposite Party No.1, contained as Annexure No.4 to this writ petition, and further direct the Opposite Party No.1 to take decision upon the application dated 17.01.2025, filed by the defendants/ Opposite Parties for recall of order dated 17.01.2025, considering the objection of the petitioner, contained as Annexure No.7 & 9 to this writ petition, in accordance with law. (ii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice." Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings are going on before the Consolidation Officer. Initially, in the first round, the matter had gone up to the revisional court who had affirmed the order passed by the S.O.C remanding the matter to the court of Consolidation Officer for decision afresh expeditiously. It is further stated that an application came to be moved, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.3 seeking prayer from the court concerned that as per the pedigree given in the said application, the same may be expected and only, thereafter, the matter shall proceed. It is further urged that considering the aforesaid, the Consolidation Officer by means of the order dated 02.12.2024 found that there are certain evidences which are available on record wherein the name and parentage of one of the parties has been mentioned. It is considering the aforesaid facts that the earlier evidences which were recorded in the first round is already available hence there is no point in deciding the issue of pedigree at the first instance which would be taken up along with merits of the matter. It is, thereafter, that an application seeking recall of the order dated 17.01.2025 has been moved. In the aforesaid backdrop, the counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be issued to the Consolidation Officer not to examine the oral evidence regarding the pedigree which already as per the petitioners shall stand decided on 02.12.2024. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, at the outset, the manner in which the petitioners have made or claimed relief cannot be granted by this Court. This Court is not going to lay down any guidelines or direct the trial to be considered or conducted in a particular manner as to which evidence is to be read or not. This is in the domain of the trial court and needless to say that the parties have ample opportunity to make their submissions as to the relevancy as well as admissibility of any evidence. Consequently, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 4.3.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench