The Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court in condoning the delay in filing a substitution application, where the trial court had sufficient cause to condone the delay.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 13. 8. 1996, whereby the representation filed by the contesting opposite parties were allowed and the substitution application filed by the petitioners were dismissed.

( 2 ) THE facts in brief are that petitioner No. 3 and predecessor of petitioners No. 1 and 2 filed suit under Sections 209 and 229b of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), read with Section 164 of U. P. Urban Area Zamindari abolition and Land Reforms Act seeking relief of declaration that they were Bhumidhars of the land in suit, on the allegations that the land in dispute belonged to one Babu Ram son of Ram dayal who had sold his half share to the plaintiffs by means of registered sale deed dated 24/25 september. 1959. The other half share was sold by Babu Ram to Gopi Chand and Bhikhu Lal. Gopi Chand and Bhikhu Lal sold their share purchased by them from Babu Ram to plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 7. 5. 1963. Babu Ram was impleaded as defendant No. 10 in the suit. The suit was contested by the contesting defendants asserting that Ram Dayal, father of defendant No. 2 Babu Ram had executed an agreement to sell dated 1. 7. 1958 of an area of 2. 60 acres of land of plot No. 73 in their favour and after his death, Babu Ram executed a deed of surrender accepting the agreement to sell dated 1. 7. 1958 in favour of the respondents. Subsequently, on 31. 12. 1959 Ram Mohan Tiwari, defendant No. 4 and his brothers purchased zamindari rights of Suresh and Harish Chand, the then Zamindars of an area of 1. 40 acres of land and Babu Ram executed another deed of surrender dated 4. 2. 1960 in their favour in which he admitted the possession of the respondents over the entire area of land. Babu Ram, during the pendency of the suit, died on 11. 2. 1988. The contesting defendant-respondents filed an application on 20. 7. 1988 informing the Court that Babu Ram, defendant No. 10, had expired and as the substitution application had not been filed the suit stood abated. The very next day, i. e. , 21. 7. 1988 the plaintiff-petitioners filed application for substituting the names of the heirs of the deceased defendant Babu Ram. The respondents filed objection to the said application. The substitution application was allowed. It was later on found that the detailed order had not been typed separately and was not available on record. On 31. 3. 1992, the trial court passed an order for hearing the substitution application afresh.

( 3 ) THE petitioners filed application for condonation of delay in filing the substitution application on 10. 4. 1992. In the application, it was stated that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the death of deceased Babu Ram and, therefore, they could not file objection to the said application. The trial court allowed the substitution application by a detailed order on 4. 2. 1993 and condoned the delay in filing the substitution application. The respondents filed revision against this order before the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur. The Additional Commissioner vide his order dated 16. 12. 1993 made a reference to the Board of Revenue with the recommendation to allow the revision. The Board of Revenue has accepted the revision vide impugned order dated 13,8. 1996 and has rejected the substitution application.

( 4 ) I have heard Sri K. M. D. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the respondents.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court having condoned the delay in filing the substitution application, the Board of Revenue in revision had no jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. Defendant No. 10 Babu Ram died. An application was filed on behalf of the contesting defendant-respondents on 20. 7. 1988 that defendant No. 10 had died and the suit be abated. The very next day, i.