(1.) S. Harkauli, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D. V. Jaiswal learned Counsel appearing for the caveator.
(2.) THE objections of the contesting respondent under Section 9 were rejected by the Consolidation Officer. THE respon dent preferred an appeal before the Settle ment Consolidation which has been al lowed by order dated 5-1 -1985 and the case has been remanded back to the CO. Against the order of S. O. C. the respon dents preferred a revision which has been allowed by impugned order.
(3.) ACCORDING to the submission of learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, the finding regarding remar riage is finding of fact recorded by S. O. C. in appeal which will not be binding upon CO. and therefore the remand order is not an interlocutory order.