M.P.Singh - (1.) THE present writ petition is directed against an order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation Azamgarh, dated 16-8-1986.
(2.) THE opposite parties No. 3 to 5 filed a time barred objection under Section 9-A (2) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act accompanied by an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. THE Consolidation Officer by an order dated 7-4-1986 has allowed the said application on payment of Rs. 15/- as cost. THE order of the Consolidation Officer though is not a very happily worded but there was application of mind so far as the question of condonation of delay is concerned. Against that order the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He has upheld the order of the Consolidation Officer and directed the parties to appear before the Consolidation Officer to lead their respective evidence so that the case may be decided in accordance with the law. Heard Sri S. N. Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. R. Singh, counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5. The only contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner was that there was no application of mind by the Consolidation Officer on the question of condonation of delay. According to him, the Consolidation Officer should have recorded a clear finding on the delay of each and every day. The delay of each and every day has to be explained by the party concerned and the same has to be considered by the Consolidation Officer while disposing of the application under Section 5 Limitation Act.
(3.) IN support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in Ram Lal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, and has specifically referred to paragraph 12 of the said judgment wherein it has been held that :- "It is however necessary to emphasise that even after sufficient cause has been shown a party is not entitled to the condonation of delay in question as a matter of right. The proof of a sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction vested in the court by Section 5. If sufficient cause is not proved nothing further has to be drawn ; the application for condoning has to be dismissed on that ground alone" In the instant case the Consolidation Officer has applied his mind and after considering the merits of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act has condoned the delay. This authority has no application to the facts of the present case.;