BHAGWAT Vs. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prayer is, that the orders dated 12-9-1989 and 7-7-1989 passed by the Assistant Director and Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation Bulandshahr respectively may be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) THE controversy appears to be very short. A time barred appeal was filed by Smt. Chandrawati before the Settlement Officer Consolidation along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. But this fact has been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents and it is alleged under para 11 of the counter-affidavit that the appeal was within time. THE Settlement Officer Consolidation, however, accepted that the appeal was time barred.

(3.) DR. Gyan Prakash learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as appeal was held time barred under the orders of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed, unless that application was disposed of first, appeal cannot be decided, as in-case application is rejected appeal has also to be rejected. In case application is allowed only in that event the appeal would be competent and would be decided on merits. Under these circumstances there was no justification for deciding the appeal and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act together on the same day. It was further urged that as the disposal of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act attaches finality to the matter because in case the application was rejected holding the appeal to be time barred, such orders could not be said to be "interlocutory order" nor order directing Section 5 application and appeal itself being decided together can be said to be an 'interlocutory order"