Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.

Notice on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 3 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel, whereas Mr. Yogendra Nath Yadav, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party no.2. For the orders proposed, no need to issue notice to opposite parties no.4, 5 and 6, as such, notice to opposite parties no.4, 5 and 6 is dispensed with.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for Gaon Sabha and perused the records.

3. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of order dated 5.8.2015, whereby the application for condonation of delay filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act in Revision No. 734 has been allowed at the cost of Rs.500/- and the matter has been directed to be listed for hearing on merit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application for condonation of delay was filed on the ground that the earlier lawyer who was engaged to file the revision had not filed revision within time due to which the delay was caused. It is contended that petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 513 (Cons.) of 2015 which was dismissed with the observations t