- (1.) SHITLA Prasad Srivastava, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 14-5-1996. THE facts as stated in the writ petition that the petitioner filed appeal alongwith Section 5 application which was allowed and against that order, the contest ing respondents filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation has al lowed the revision with the finding that the petitioner has not given sufficient cause for condonation of delay and in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the day to day delay was not explained. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before the Court a decision of the Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 1987 SC 1353 between Naubat Sharma and Addl. District Judge Moradabad in which the Supreme Court has held that a liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts in delay condonation matters. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner was not a party therefore, he tiled an appeal beyond limitation, there fore, and the appellate Court was right in allowing Section 5 application. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the ques tion of fact has been answered by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by making observations that there was no sufficient cause for the condonation of delay. His submission is that day to day explanation for the delay was not ex plained, therefore, the revision was rightly allowed and in the present facts and cir cumstances, no interference is required under Article of the Constitution of India. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I am of the view that it was the discretion of the Court below whether to allow the delay condonation application or not and if the appellate Court was satisfied and has allowed the application and the Deputy Director of Consolidation have perused the applica tion himself and his mere observation that day td day delay is not explained, is not sufficient. In view of the Supreme Court, decision (supra), the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have taken the liberal view in the revision.
(3.) KEEPING in view the observations made by the Supreme Court, (supra), the writ petition is allowed and order dated 14-5-1996 is quashed. The Settlement Of ficer Consolidation is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously. Petition allowed. .;