J.N. Dubey, J. - (1.) The respondent no. 3 Smt. Rajkali filed an objection under Section 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. As the objection was barred by time by about two months she also moved an application for condonation of delay which was allowed by the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners filed revision to the Deputy Director of Consolidation which has been dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, they have approached this Court for redress under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The findings of the consolidation authorities that the respondent no. 3 has succeeded in explaining the delay in filing the objection are based on materials on record and call for no interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The result of the impugned orders is that the dispute between the parties will be decided by the Consolidation officer on merits afresh after affording them proper opportunities of hearing. It is now well settled that the writ or revisional jurisdictions should ordinarily be exercised to enable the parties to get their disputes decided on merits and not otherwise. This being so the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. The writ petition is devoid or merits and is accordingly dismissed.;