K. P. Singh, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed that for quashing the judgment of the revisional court dated 29.10.1987 whereby delay has been condoned and a direction has been issued to decide the claim of the parties on merits. It appears that an objection was filed by the contesting opposite parties under Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act with a prayer for condonation of delay as is evident from annexure -2' attached to the writ petition. The consolidation officer through his judgment dated 16.4.1987 did not condone the delay and rejected the objection as is evident from annexure '7' to the writ petition/ Aggrieved by the order of the consolidation officer, the contesting opposite parties had preferred a revision petition which has been allowed and now the petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the judgment of the revisional Court.
(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the consolidation officer was fully justified in rejecting the objection of the contesting opposite parties as barred by time and not condoning the delay of five years, as no sufficient cause was shown. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the revisional court has acted illegally and arbitrarily in interfering with the order of the Consolidation Officer without any ground.
(3.) Learned counsel for the contesting opposite parties has submitted in reply that only delay has been condoned by the impugned order and the parties have been afforded opportunity to contest their case on merits. Therefore, it is not a lit case where any interference should be made with the impugned judgment.;