The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay and the need to provide evidence to support the grounds for recalling an order.

Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

1. Heard Sri S.P. Pandey, for the petitioners and Sri Indradeo Maurya, for respondent-2.

2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, dated 28.06.2016, dismissing recall application of the petitioners as time barred, in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

3. The dispute between the parties was in respect of plot 68 (area 0-3-10) bigha of village Usri, pargana Kera Mangraur, district Chandauli. In basic consolidation year, land in dispute was recorded in khata-8, in the names of Rama, Uma sons of Ram Roop and Smt. Shubhwanti widow of Bakhtawar. Ram Dev Pandey (respondent-2) filed an objection under Section 9 of the Act, claiming his right on the basis of sale deed dated 11.04.1934, executed by the predecessors of the petitioners, in favour of his father. He claimed that the land in dispute was falling inside the land purchased by his father through sale deed dated 11.04.1934 and was transferred to him along with other land. In alternative, he claimed that he had been in possession of this land since 11.04.1934 as such his right through adverse possession accrued over it. Consolidation Officer, by order dated 16.10.1971, found that although the land in dispute was not included in the sale deed dated 11.04.1934 but being inside of land covered in the aforesaid sale deed, respondent-2 and his predecessor were in possession of it and his right by way of adverse possession was matured. On these findings, he allowed the objection of respondent-2. Rama and others filed an appeal from aforesaid order. Settlement Officer Consolidation by order dated 15.09.1972, dismissed the appeal. Rama and others filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 2774) against aforesaid order, which was allowed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, by order dated 10.09.1975, on the ground that plea of adverse possession has neither been raised nor proved. Ram Dev Pandey (respondent-2) filed a writ petition (registered as Civil Misc. Writ petition No. 19 of 1976). This Court, by judgment dated 04.08.1994, held that there was clear pleading of adverse possession of Ram Dev Pandey but Deputy Director of Consolidation has illegally held that there was no pleading relating to adverse possession. On this ground he has also ignored the evidence on record in this respect. On these findings, writ petition was allowed, order of Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 10.09.1975 was set aside and matter has been remanded to Deputy Director of Consolidation, for fresh decision of the revision on merit.

4. After remand, the revision was dismissed in default by Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 16.01.2007. The petitioners filed an application dated 03.07.2014, for recall of aforesaid order, along with delay condonation application. In the application and affidavit filed in support of it, the petitioners have stated that Rama Pandey, their father fell ill in December, 2006 and became unable to move. He had become physically and mentally paralytic and was not able to attend the Court. The petitioners had no knowledge of the revision as such they could not do any pairavee in it. As such, the revision was dismissed in default on 16.01.2007. On 01.07.2014, respondent-2 came on spot for taking possession over disputed land and informed that he had won litigation in 2007, in respect of land in dispute, then on inquiry, they could know about it. Order dated 16.01.2007, dismissing revision in default is causing grave injustice to the petitioners and is liable to be recalled, condoning delay.

5. Respondent-2 filed an objection to recall application and delay condonation application. He had denied that Rama Pandey ever fell ill in December, 2006 or he was unable to move in January 2007. He has stated that his name was recorded over the land in dispute on the basis of order of Consolidation Officer dated 16.10.1971. After setting aside of order