S.K. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Earlier this petition was decided after hearing Counsel for the parties and the same was allowed by judgment and order dated 10.5.2002. Thereafter, it transpired that some of the respondents were dead and heirs were not brought on record and therefore, on filing Recall Application on behalf of heirs of respondents, order dated 10.5.2002 was recalled and thus the matter is before this Court for hearing.
(3.) There appears to be no dispute about the fact that the appellate authority by order dated 9.5.1994 has allowed the application filed by petitioner under section 5 of Indian Limitation Act and the appeal was treated to be within time and date was fixed for hearing in appeal. The aforesaid order of the appellate authority was challenged by the opposite party before revisional Court who allowed the revision and set aside the order of appellate authority. The order passed by Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation by which, he has condoned the delay in filing appeal, on examination by the Court has been found not to be arbitrary or perverse in any manner. The appellate authority has assigned reason and after considering the facts and circumstances the order was passed and therefore, revisional authority exercising its revisional jurisdiction was not required to interfere in that discretionary order. By the order of appellate authority, opposite party cannot be said to have suffered any serious prejudice and therefore, this Court is satisfied that as proceedings before the Consolidation authorities happened to be under section 9-A (2) UPCH Act, which is in respect to the title of the parties, dispute between parties was liable to be decided on merits as after finalization of the consolidation proceedings, any claim in respect to rights and title stands barred under section 49 of the UPCH Act.;