R.S. SARKARIA, J.

(1) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the appellant has raised two contentions:

(1) That the order of the Consolidation Officer was appealable under S. 11 of the Act.

(2) In any case, the Director of Consolidation had exceeded his jurisdiction under S. 48, inasmuch as he allowed additional evidence to be produced -"before him in revision, which the revision-petitioner could have produced before the Consolidation Officer, but neglected to do so.

(2) LEARNED counsel for the respondents strenuously opposed these contentions.

(3) WE find that contention (7) is not correct. The order against which Gian Chand Bansari went in revision before the Director did not fall within the purview of S. 9-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and, as such, was not appealable under S. 11 of that Act. We however find a good deal of force in the second contention of the appellant. Whether or not there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, is a question of fact dependent upon the facts and circumstances of a particular case, and the proposition is well-settled that when order has been made under S. 5, Limitation Act by