Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead concerned Gaon Sabha as respondent No. 7 and serve the copy of the writ petition to Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to correct the description of respondent No. 2.

2. Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh alongwith Smt. Manjari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31.12.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Sadar, Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 10/2006-07 (Birbal Singh v. Naresh Chand Jain and others) and order dated 29.1.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Adminstration) Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur in Revision No. 28/2013-14 (Birbal Singh v. Smt. Rahisa Begum and others).

3. While assailing the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the Courts below have erred in rejecting the petitioner’s objection to decide the application for condonation of delay first and in case, the delay is condoned, only thereafter decide the recall application.

4. The facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner has filed Suit No. 10/2006-07 (Birbal Singh v. Naresh Chand Jain and others) under Section 229-B of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Muzaffarnagar. In the suit, there were thirty defendants. The notices were issued and out of thirty, twenty six have appeared and many of them have filed their written statement including the Gaon Sabha. The present respondent Nos. 3 to 6 did not appear before the Court and the suit was decreed ex parte on 18.9.2008.

5. After sometime, four separate applications were filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure in between 2011 to 2013 for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.9.2008. All the applications were barred by time, therefore applications were also filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has filed an objection to Section 5 applications stating therein that delay in filing the restoration application is deliberate for the reason that respondents, inspite of due notice, have not appeared before the Court and want to frustrate the fruit of the decree. Therefore, the delay condonation application be decided first and in case, delay is condoned, only thereafter the restoration application be decided on merit.

7. The Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the petitioner’s objection, by observing that both the applications shall be decided simultaneously, vide order dated 31.12.2013.

8. Aggrieved petitioner has filed revision against the aforesaid order, that has also been dismissed with the following observations :

fuxjkuhdrkZ dk dFku gS fd vkns'k fnukad 18&9&2008 ds fo:) o"kZ 2013 esa le;ckfèkr iquLFkkZiu izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] nsjh ds lEcU/k esa loZizFke /kkjk&5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e ds izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k fd;k tkuk Fkk fdUrq voj U;k;ky; }kjk ,slk u dj fof/kd =qfV dh x;h gSA fuxjkuhdrkZ ds bu dFkuksa esa dksbZ cy izrhr ugh gksrk gS D;ksafd iquLFkkZiu izkFkZuk i= ,oa èkkjk&5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e ds izkFkZuk i=ksa ij ,d lkFk gh lquokbZ dh tkuh U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrh gS rkfd izdj.k dk fuLrkj.k xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tk lds rFkk i{kdkjksa dks leqfpr U;k; izkIr gks ldsA voj U;k;ky; }kjk vkns'k fnukad 31&12&2013 ds }kjk izkFkZuk i= fnukad 25&6&2013 dk fuLrkj.k fd;k x;k gSA

9. While assailing the impugned orders, Sri Singh learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has become time barred, it has conferred a substantial right to the petitioner and unless the delay is condoned, the application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedu