MUSEY Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on Bharosa v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1981 ALJ 176, in support of his contention that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should not have allowed the application under Section 5 Limitation Act, unless each day's delay was explained. The view taken in the said ruling about Section 5, Limitation Act, is with respect not open to any exception. However, writ jurisdiction is discretionary and if a subordinate Court has condoned the delay, it is not necessary that this Court should interfere with such an order under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, a Full Bench of this Court has held in Ramakant Singh v. Deputy Director : AIR 1975 All 126, that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should consider the question of suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction even if a time barred revision application has been given before him. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Prasad Gupta v. Deputy Director of Consolidation : 1981 Supp. SCC 73 has also held that an order of condonation of delay by an inferior Court need not be lightly interfered with.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY , I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.