IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 283 of 2009 Sumitra …….. Petitioner Versus Daya Ram and others ……. Respondents ……………. Sri Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. Date: March 19, 2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma,J By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate, Haridwar in Revision No. 240 of 2008, which was filed under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act. 2. The application was moved by the petitioner before the Deputy Director Consolidation to the effect that the question of maintainability of the revision preferred by the revisionist (respondent No.1 herein) be decided prior to the decision of the revision on merits. The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has passed the order that the question of maintainability of revision shall be decided at the time of hearing of revision. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the learned Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision on merits preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. (Stay Application No. 1391 of 2009 stands disposed of accordingly.) (B.S. Verma,J.) 19.03.2009 P.Singh