Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri A.P.Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri R.K. Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

2. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.7.2002 passed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation (in short SOC) and the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation (in short DDC). vide order dated 24.7.2002 the SOC has condoned the delay in filing the appeal and fixed date for hearing of the appeal whereas by the subsequent order dated 4.1.2005 the DDC has dismissed the revision holding it to be not maintainable against the order dated 24.7.2002.

3. The impugned orders have been assailed on two grounds: (i) The SOC has erred in condoning the delay without recording satisfaction that the delay was satisfactorily explained. (ii) The DDC has also erred in dismissing the revision holding it to be not maintainable.

4. Sri Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent submits that on merit the matter has already been adjudicated and the petitioners’ right has also been determined and untouched upto the High Court and it was merely an application for recording the names of the respondents in the revenue record, therefore, the impugned orders should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. First of all I want to consider the merit of the order dated 4.1.2005 passed by the DDC in Revision No. 774 (Ram Niwas Singh and others v. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur and others). It is not in dispute that the Revision was filed against the order dated 24.7.2002 by which the delay has been condoned in filing the appeal and the DDC has dismissed the revision holding it to be not maintainable taking note of the decision of this Court in Sukhjindar Jeet Kaur v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Rampur and others, 2003 RD 448.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the law laid down in Sukhjinder Jeet Kaur (supra) now does not hold good law in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in Paras Nath v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Varanasi and others, 2008(3) ADJ 112, wherein it has been held that in both the cases while condoning the delay or refusing to condone the delay a revision would lie as the orders either of condonation of delay or refusal to condone the delay does not fall in the ambit of an interlocutory order and the DDC will have jurisdiction under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 to entertain the Revision.

In Bodda v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Banda and others, 2013(5) ADJ 248 and Birbal Singh v. Additional Commissioner and 5 others, 2014(4) ADJ 674, also the same view has been taken by this Court.

In view of the aforesaid legal position the maintainability of Revision cannot be doubted but question remains that once the delay has been condoned by the SOC in filing the appeal, whether it had worth to be interfered with under the revisional jurisdiction or not. The Apex Court in State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another, JT 2000 (5) 389, has observed as under:

“Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower Court.”

7. Otherwise also the law of limitation is not meant to take away