The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expression 'sufficient cause' for delay condonation should receive liberal construction, and mutation proceedings cannot be stayed due to the pendency of a suit.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and orders dated 7. 3. 2005 and 13. 1. 2005 passed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2, by means of which the order of the Collec tor passed in

appeal dated 18. 8. 1999 has been set aside and the Collector has been directed to hear and decide the restoration application and condonation of delay ap plication and thereafter if he thinks proper, may decide the appeal on merit as well.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are that opposite party No. 4 mossed an application on 4. 5. 1988 with the prayer that plot No. 138 measuring 72 decimal in which she was residing along with the land appurtenant in the form of hata may be recorded as abadi as she was residing in the said premises from the year 1935 and by mistake ef the revenue authorities the said error has crept in. She has also stated that there was one Well on the said land of the house, which has not been shown in the settlement map. She, therefore, prayed that according to the spot position, correction be made in the map regarding house, Well, boundary gate and lawn (hata ). The Naib Tehsildar submitted a report on 3. 5. 1989, in which it was stated that house, Well, boundary wall of the op posite party No. 4 was existing for the last 20 years and no agricultural activity was being done on the said land. The opposite party No. 4 was in possession over the en tire land, but her possession has been re corded only on 21 decimal. Therefore, the land in question may be declared as abadi. The then Sub-Divisional Officer (South), Varanasi heard the matter and by means of order dated 8. 5. 1989 rejected the applica tion of the opposite party No. 4 finding it as not maintainable. The opposite party No. 4 thereafter on 10. 5. 1989 moved a recall ap plication, inter alia, stating therein that she was not heard before the impugned order was passed and, therefore, the said ex-parte order may be recalled and after hearing her, this order may be passed. The then Sub-Divisional Officer by means of order dated 7. 7. 1990 recalled the ex-parte order dated 8. 5. 1969. On 16. 8. 1990 an ap plication was moved by opposite party No. 4 that from the report of the Naib Tehsildar her possession was established and, therefore, under section 33/39 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, the case may be registered and the name of the other per sons may be expunged. The petitioners were issued notice and thereafter it is al leged that publication was made in the newspapers as well on 5. 10. 1990, but the petitioners did not put in their appearance, whereupon ex-parte proceedings were drawn and ex-parte order was passed on 12. 10. 1990 expunging the names of the pe titioners from the said plot and recording the name of opposite party No. 4 as bhu-midhar and further order was passed for recording the plot in question as abadi in the Khasra. Agamst this order Smt. Usha Singh through her General Power of Attor ney, Ganpat Singh moved an application on 26. 10. 1994 alleging therein that the no tices were never served upon the petition ers regarding the said proceedings and they were not used to reading of newspa pers and they did not receive any informa tion, therefore, the ex-parte order dated 12. 10. 1990 may be recalled. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act along with the affidavit was also moved for con doning the delay in moving the application for recall of the order. The opposite party No. 4 filed an objection on 26. 5. 1995 to the recall application of Smt. Usha Singh. The Deputy Collector (South) heard the parties and rejected the recall application of Smt. Usha Singh on 15. 4. 1998. Against this order Smt. Usha Singh preferred a revision No. III of 1998 on 12. 5. 1998 before the Additional Commissioner. Thereafter an appli cation was moved before the Additional Commissioner for withdrawal of the revi sion on 23. 11. 1998 on finding that the revision was not maintainable against the said order and the r