A.N. Verma, J. - (1.) Dispute between the petitioner and opposite party No. 2, decided by the Consolidation Officer on 30.12.1988 on the basis of a compromise said to have been entered into between the parties, was made subject-matter of challenge by the petitioner by filing an appeal on 14.3.1996. Since, the appeal was time bared, therefore, an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay was also preferred. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, vide its judgment and order dated 23.9.1998 condoned the delay. Being aggrieved against the same the opposite party No. 2 filed a revision before the opposite party No. 1, who vide its judgment and order dated 26.4.2003 allowed the same and remanded the matter back to the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, for consideration afresh on the question of cause of delay. The settlement officer, Consolidation, vide its judgment and order dated 13.12.2004 condoned the delay and fixed 23.12.2004 for hearing.
(2.) Being not satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, the opposite party No. 2 filed a revision before the opposite party No. 1. Vide judgment and order dated 5.3.2005 the opposite party No. 1 allowed the revision preferred by the opposite party No. 2. It is against the said judgment and order that the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant writ petition.
(3.) Sri Jai Shanker Mishra appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and also filed a counter affidavit on her behalf.;