Jais Lal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur and Another

Ran Vijai Singh, J.—This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

To issue a writ of mandamus order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 1 to decide the question of limitation firstly before deciding the revision No. 810 of 2013 on merit.

To issue any other further writ, order or direction to which the petitioner be found entitled in law.

Heard Sri. S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Stale-respondents.

It is contended by Sri Tripathi that against an order dated 2.2.2011, passed in appeal No. 260/2010 (Ram Sagar and another v. Jais Lal and others), a revision was filed on 9.7.2013. Obviously, the revision was barred by time and thereafter, revisionist-opposite party has filed an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision. The petitioner has filed objection to the said delay condonation application. In the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court is proceeding to decide the matter on merit without condoning the delay. In his submissions, unless the delay is condoned, the matter cannot be decided on merit. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Parbhu and Another Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur and Others, .

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the Court can decide the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the revision simultaneously. However, he has not disputed the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in a proceeding which is barred by limitation. Section 5 of the Limitation Act confers the power upon the Court to extend the period of limitation, provided there is sufficient explanation for extending the period or condoning the delay in filing the appeal, revision or suit. Learned Standing Counsel may be right in his submissions that both the things can be done simultaneously, but one thing is settled that unless the delay is condoned, the appeal/revision/suit will not be competent and the same cannot be decided on merit. Therefore, even if the Deputy Director of Consolidation is proceeding to decide both the things simultaneously, he is directed to decide the question of limitation first either by condoning the delay or by refusing to condone the delay. In the event of condonation of delay, he may decide the matter on merit, but not prior to one month from the date the order passed on the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for the reason that an order condoning or refusing to condone the delay would confer a right upon an aggrieved party to challenge the same before higher Court.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, this writ petition is disposed of.