K.P. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court dated 3-8-1987 whereby the case has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the revisional court has patently erred in allowing the revision Sion and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer without applying his mind to the question of limitation involved m the case. According to the petitioner the revision petition was belated and unless the revisional court had applied its mind to the question of limitation, it could not entertain the revision Petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has supported the impugned Judgement dated 3-8-1987 on the ground that the revisional court has done substantial justice between the parties. Therefore, the order should not be quashed, The second submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite part, is to the effect that the Consolidation Officer had not complied with the direction contained in the order of remand passed by the revisional court in the year 1980. Therefore, the revisional court was fully justified in passing the impugned order dated 3-8-1987 and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer. The third submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite party is to the effect that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be deemed in the eye of law that delay had been condoned by the revisional court and the decision of the revisional court being good on merit, should not be interfered with.;