PHOOL CHAND Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 18.9.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, by which the said authority dismissed application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act preferred by the petitioners in revision.

(2.) NECESSARY facts may be recapitulated and they are that deceased Tapsi father of the petitioner preferred revision against the judgment dated 22.4.1983 on 31.5.1983 passed by the appellate authority. During the pendency of the revision, the aforesaid Tapsi breathed his last and he was accordingly substituted by heirs and legal representatives who are the petitioners in the instant petition. Subsequently, it transpired that the revision was filed belatedly and consequently, application under Section 5 attended with the affidavit of the learned counsel representing the petitioners was filed. However, the revision came to be dismissed on the premises that application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act was filed after an efflux of 17 years, though it brooks no dispute that the revision was still pending.

(3.) I have scrutinized the rival contentions made across the bar and also considered the materials on record. The questions that emerge for consideration in the above conspectus are ; (1) Whether the Court on the basis of oral prayer supported by materials on record could decide the question of sufficiency of the cause and could condone the delay and (2) whether during the pendency of the revision, application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision could be preferred and whether the revisional authority could consider such application for condonation of delay.