appear before this Court that after the updation of records taking place in terms of Section 22 of the Act of 1948, thus, the said motion became addressed to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh. 3. Though initially, the making of the said motion before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Chandigarh, was an inappropriately recoursed motion before him, as after updation of records taking place in terms of Section 22 of the Act of 1948, thus, subsequently, the remedy to any aggrieved from the finalized consolidation scheme whereafters the updation of records, takes place, rather is not through his accessing the Director of Consolidation, through a motion being cast before him under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, but is through his accessing the Civil Court remedy. The reason being that the jurisdiction conferred upon the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, upon his becoming seized with the petition cast under Section 42 of the Act of 1948, is but limited to his making corrections of arithmetical and another clerical mistakes and/or is limited only to the creation of a consolidation rasta but only when such a rasta is not created in the consolidation scheme.
