The Court emphasized the importance of justifying delay in filing appeals and the need to examine each case based on its specific facts and explanations before condoning the delay.

Challenge in this petition is concurrent judgments of the Consolidation Officer, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation. This petition is delayed by one year and 190 days vide report of the Stamp Reporter.

Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at admission stage.

2. Submission is that the order of the Assistant Consolidation Officer is illegal and fraudulent as opposite parties got petitioners share reduced and the compromise was got entered illegally and in fact petitioner was not party in the proceeding and thus the compromise order being illegal was liable to be set aside but the appellate authority and the revisional Court has dismissed the petitioners appeal and revision as barred by time. It is further submitted that in respect to various averments as made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner there is no specific denial by the opposite party in the affidavit and, therefore, that is to be treated as admission and thus petitioner was entitled for relief as prayed. In support of the submission that if the order is result of fraud and if it suffers inherent lack of jurisdiction the Court has inherent jurisdiction to recall it, reliance has been placed on a decision given in the case of Budhia Swain & Ors. v. Gopinath Deb & Ors. reported in 1999 A. C. J. 1462. In support of the submission that if a plea or allegation has not been controverted it is to be treated as admission, reliance has been placed on a decision given in the case of P. N. Srivastava v. State of U. P. & Ors. reported in 1999 A. C. J. 255.

3. In view of the aforesaid the question is that whether dismissal of appeal and revision on the ground of delay which was filed after lapse of 22 years is justified ?

4. To deal with the aforesaid submissions reference to the brief admitted facts will be necessary. After notification of the consolidation process in the village at the stage of the proceedings under Section 9- A (2) of the U. P. C. H. Act parties right/share was decided in terms of the compromise vide order of the Consolidation Officer dated 18-11-1970. Appeal was filed by the petitioner against the judgment of the Consolidation Officer dated 18-11-1970 on 29-6-1992 i. e. after lapse of about twenty two years. The affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application was countered by the respondents. The appellate authority after dealing with the matter dismissed the appeal. Revision filed by the petitioner also failed and thus all the three judgments are against the petitioner.

5. Needless to say that in the matter of condonation of delay the Courts are to take lenient view as it is to advance justice but at the same time it cannot be held as a rule that in each and every case although there is no satisfactory explanation or there is no bona fide on the part of the applicant, delay of any number of years has to be condoned in a routine manner. Thus facts of each case and explanation so given has to be examined, of course viewing the matter with liberal approach. So far the case in hand is concerned the order was passed by the Consolidation Officer in the year 1970. Even if we accept the explanation of the petitioner that initially he could not know about the order of the Consolidation Officer as he was in service although he used to come to the village from time to time in the vacations but on his own admission in paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit in support of the recall application he came to village in the year 1988 then he came to know about the fraud of the opposite party and reduction of the land/area in his chak. It is said that he moved an application before the Consolidation Officer immediately but no action was taken. Thereafter it is said that in June, 1992 he again came in the village and then he filed appeal. The aforesaid explanation has been tested by the appellate authority and the revisional Court that whether it can be believed or not. Courts have given th