Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner, Sukkhu and the respondent No. 3 Ram Das are brothers. It appears that the Consolidation Officer had passed an order of allotment of chak way back on 30.4.1974. The respondent No. 3 has filed an appeal On 5.3.1987 alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. A copy of that application is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The ground given in the application was that earlier the third respondent had preferred an appeal within time in 1974 itself and the file of that appeal is not traceable and as such the present appeal was filed. The Settlement Officer Consolidation by his order dated 1.10.2002 condoned the delay. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation was challenged by the petitioner unsuccessfully in revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed die revision by order dated 23.12.2002. The order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Heard Sri S.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for the third respondent.
(3.) It is submitted by Sri Tripathi that the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been passed without a specific finding which was required to be recorded about the sufficiency of cause for the delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and another, 1998 (89) RD 18 (SC) where the Apex Court has set aside the order condoning the delay, which was passed by the High Court on the ground that the discretion exercised by the High Court was neither proper nor judicious. It was held that law of limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The other consideration which can not be ignored is that if sufficient cause for delay is shown discretion is given to the Court to condone the delay. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri S.N. Singh relied upon the decision in Parahu and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, U.P. at Gorakhpur and others, 1964 RD 140 in which it has been held that the High Court may not interfere where in a revision the Deputy Director of Consolidation acted in excess of jurisdiction vested in him under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, if his order was proper, equitable and a just order. The other decision relied upon is Banwari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 1975 RD 254 in which it has been held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can not be invoked merely by showing that an order is wrong. It must further be shown that it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. The proposition laid down in these two authorities can not be doubted. However, the question of limitation can not be brushed aside and sufficiency of cause is to be shown.;