Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pankaj Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar appearing for respondent No. 3.
(2.) During consolidation operation, objection under section 9-A (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act filed by petitioner and respondent No. 3 .and certain other members of the family, were consolidated and decided by a common order dated 26.11.1979. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred an appeal The appeal was dismissed in default. Petitioner filed a restoration application alongwith an application under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation, of delay. The Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 16.3.2005 allowed the application for condonation of delay and fixed restoration application for hearing and disposal on merits. Respondent No. 3 went up in revision challenging the order dated 16.3.2005. The revision filed by respondent No. 3 was contested by the petitioner on the ground that the same was not maintainable as it was directed against interlocutory order condoning the delay. The revisional Court vide impugned order dated 14.11.2005 dismissed the objection filed by the petitioner and held that revision challenging the order allowing the delay condonation application was maintainable. Aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
(3.) It has been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has wrongly held the revision as maintainable In as much an order condoning the delay was only an interlocutory order and no revision was maintainable against the same. Reliance in support of the contention has been placed on the decision in the cases of Vijai Bahadur Singh v. Assistant Director of Consolidation, Deoria and another, 1996 (87) RD 298 and Paras Nath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Basti others, 2002 (93) RD 764.;