- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. The petitioners claimed that on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the parties in the court of Assistant Consolidation Officer in Case No. 776, the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide his order, dated 14-11-1987 directed that the name of the petitioners be mutated over plot No. 684 area 22 decimal in village, Pakar and at Chak No. 116 area 45 decimal at village, Bartha in place of Gangajali.
(2.) AGGRIEVED thereby an appeal has been filed by the respondents wherein an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved by the respondents for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The petitioners filed objection against the application filed by the respondents under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and contended that the appeal is not maintainable and also contended before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation that at first, the issue of limitation in filing the appeal, should be heard and decided. The Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide his order dated 18-6- 1987 held that the purpose of consolidation proceedings is to resolve the dispute between the parties expeditiously and with an intent to save the time of the court and to avoid the harassment of the parties, it is necessary that both the matters, namely, the application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and the merits of the appeal may be heard together and accordingly directed that both the matters may be heard together. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide his order dated 20-10-1995 rejected the petitioners, revision, taking a view that the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation is of interlocutory character and no revision lay against the said order.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid two orders, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the appeal itself was not competent, unless the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed and the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, it was imperative on the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation to have first decided the tune of condonation of delay in filing the appeal and only after being satisfied that the delay deserves to be condoned, the appeal would have been competent to be heard and it was incumbent upon the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation to have first heard and decided the Question of condonation of delay, thereafter could have heard the appeal on merits. The learned counsel has also contended that the order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation was not an interlocutory order, as it has affected the rights of the parties in getting the matter decided at appropriate stage.;