Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) The appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 23.1.1980 of the Consolidation Officer was dismissed in default on 16.4.1982 by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the "restoration application was filed on the same date. The application was dismissed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation on 20.8.1983. Against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation the petitioner filed a revision. The copy of the memo of revision has been filed along with the writ petition. It bears the date 24.10.1983. As there was some delay in filing of the revision the petitioner filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act supported by an affidavit. It is stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit that the petitioner was ill from 6.10.1983 to 22.10.1983. The revision was rejected by the order dated 24.5.1989. In the order of the Revisional Court it is stated that the revision was filed on 24.10.1983. The Revisional Court has refused to condone the delay on the ground that the petitioner did not file any medical certificate in proof of illness. The other ground for dismissing the revision was that the certified copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer was not filed by the petitioner. Time was granted to the respondents to file a counter-affidavit but no counter-affidavit has been filed. It is clear that the delay in filing the revision was not much. The delay was explained on the ground of illness. The fact that the petitioner was ill was stated in the affidavit. As no counter-affidavit has been filed, it is not clear as to whether any counter-affidavit had been filed by the respondents to the delay condonation application in the revision. Considering the fact that the delay was not much and there was an affidavit that the petitioner was ill, it appears on the facts of this case that the delay ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice. As regards the other ground that the certified copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer was not filed the contention of. the petitioner's Counsel is that the revision was directed against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation rejecting the restoration application of the petitioner and it was not necessary to file the copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer. This contention too has force. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has erred in dismissing the revision on the ground that the certified copy of the order of the Consolidation Officer was not filed. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 24.5.1989 is set aside. He is directed to dispose of the revision afresh. Petition Allowed.;