JAIS LAL Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

(2.) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the Court can decide the application filed under Section 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 under Section 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.