Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Husain Sayeed Zamal Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Shir S. Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.A.Khan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.1.1994 (Annexure No. 4) passed by the opposite party No. 9/Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich.

2. Facts in brief of the present case are that the controversy involved in the present case relates to Gata No. 1870/6.82 situated in village Chhapariya, Pargana, Tehsil and District-Bahraich.

In respect of the land in dispute, the matter came up before the opposite party No. 9/Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich in a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

By means of the order dated 10.1.1994 as contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, opposite party No. 9/Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich heard the matter in regard to the condonation of delay/maintainability and after hearing the parties on the said issue, he reserved the order on the said points and directed that the parties shall proceed to argue the revision on merit in the interest of justice.

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.1.1994, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.

Shri Husain Sayeed Zamal Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Shri S. Miraza, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the same is illegal and without jurisdiction as opposite party No. 9 has acted in most illegal and arbitrary matter thereby not deciding the matter in regard to the condonation of delay/maintainability first. So, the impugned order is in contravention to the provisions as provided under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by this Court in the case of Narsing Rao and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria and others, 1982 (1) RR 283 and Ram Baran v. D.D.C., Gonda and others, 1987 RD 91.

Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order being contrary to law, liable to be set aside.

4. Shri R.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent while defending the impugned order submits that the order dated 22.1.1984 had been obtained by the petitioner by way of fraud. So, the action on the part of the opposite party No. 9/Additional Collector/Chief Revenue Officer, Bahraich thereby directing the parties to argue the matter on merit, after hearing them on the point of limitation/maintainability is not illegal order, hence, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

As per admitted facts of the present case, the order dated 22.1.1984 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Bahrich was challenged by way of filing a revision under Section 48 (1) of the Act alongwith an application for condonation of delay and before the said authority, the point in regard to the condonation of delay as well as maintainability of revision have been taken by the petitioner who are respondents, after hearing on the said point, opposite party No. 1 reserved the verdict on the said points and directed the parties that to argue the revision on merit, in order to decide the controversy in the interest of justice. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by opposite party No. 9 is contrary to the provisions as provided under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be examined.

6. It will be appropriate to go through the provisions as provided under Section 3 of the Limitation Act which provided that subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and applicat