RAM PRAKASH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference made by learned Single Judge for consideration of the issue, as extracted below, the matter has been placed before the Division Bench:

(2.) The issue was referred to Larger Bench for the reason that there are two divergent views given by Single Benches of this Court in Consolidation No. 604 of 2014 (Dev Narain Singh Vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and others) decided on September 5, 2014 and Girja Shanker and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 1996 RD 465.

(3.) In Dev Narain Singh's case (supra) the view expressed by learned Single Judge of this Court was that it is not mandatory for the appellate authority to decide the application for condonation of delay first and then hear the appeal on merits. On the other hand, in Girja Shanker's case (supra), a single Judge of this Court opined that an order passed by appellate authority condoning the delay in filing the appeal is not an interlocutory order, hence, revision under Sec. 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as "1953 Act") is maintainable against that order. It was, thus, observed that it is mandatory for the appellate authority to decide the application seeking condonation of delay first and then fix a later date to hear the appeal on merits, so as not to deprive the party aggrieved, if any, of his right to avail the remedy admissible to him against the order passed on the application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "1963 Act").