Satish Chandra, J. - (1.) The Consolidation Officer condoned the delay in filing an objection u/S. 9, U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The other side feeling aggrieved filed a revision. The Dy. Director went into the merits and held that there was no sufficient explanation for the delay. On this ground he allowed the revision and set aside the order condoning the delay. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the Dy. Director had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the application for the condonation of delay. S. 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act confers powers upon the Dy. Director to reach on facts and law every kind of order passed by a subordinate consolidation authority. The order condoning the delay was subject to the revisional powers u/S. 48 of the Act. Learned counsel, however, relied upon the decision of the Board of Revenue in Mangali v/s. Putti Lal (1971 AWR (Rev.) 53) to the effect that where the Court of original jurisdiction condones the delay, an appellate Court has no power to go into the merits of such condonation. It can go into the merits of the case because an appeal would lie only against an order passed by the trial Court on the merits of the case. The decision does not discuss the statutory provisions in regard to the appellate or revisional powers under the Z.A. Act. We are not satisfied that this decision lays down the law correctly; but it is unnecessary to discuss the matter further because it does not apply to the proceedings under the Consolidation of Holdings Act under which, as mentioned above, the revisional powers are very wide and they can reach every order passed by a subordinate consolidation authority. The petition is rejected.;