The court emphasized that negligence or inaction by a litigant or their counsel cannot justify the condonation of delay in filing applications, reinforcing the need for diligence in legal proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Pathak, J.

1. Heard Sri Vivek Shandilya, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vaibhav Shandilya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Uday Kanan Saxena, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Prabha Shanker Pandey and Shri G.R. Niranjan, learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by Consolidation Officer, whereby restoration application dated 24.03.2000 moved on behalf of petitioner assailing the order dated 28.02.1996 has been rejected, and aforesaid order passed by Consolidation Officer has been affirmed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of the petitioner vide order dated 15.09.2017.

3. Facts culled out from the record are that present petitioner and his two brothers, namely, Govind Prasad and Brij Mohan have filed an objection dated 19.01.1989 under Section 9(A)2 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in brevity 'U.P.C.H. Act') along with delay condonation application against contesting respondents claiming their right, title and interest over the property in question on the basis of gift deed dated 10.07.1938 and 21.02.1939 said to have been executed by Ram Lal, who was, as claimed by petitioner, his maternal grandfather. Aforesaid objection filed on behalf of the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed in default vide order dated 28.02.1996 (Annexure No.2). At belated stage, petitioner has filed restoration application dated 24.03.2000 (Annexure no.3) supported by affidavit along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act. Against said restoration application, two sets of objection were filed; (i) Ram Sewak (respondent no.5) has filed his objection dated 13.02.2003 (Annexure no.4) and (ii) Shyam Narayan along with Sri Ram (respondent nos. 3 and 4) have filed separate objection dated 02.04.2003 (Annexure no.5). After due consideration, Consolidation Officer has rejected the restoration application vide order dated 10.10.2011 (Annexure no.6). Deputy Director of Consolidation, on revision being filed on behalf of petitioner and others, has dismissed the same vide order dated 15.09.2017, which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by Consolidation Officer and order dated 15.09.2017 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, has submitted that Consolidation Officer has illegally rejected the restoration application for want of affidavit with respect to the misconduct of the Advocate concerned. It is next submitted that counsel engaged in the Civil Court was different from the counsel engaged in the Consolidation Court, therefore, dismissing the restoration application on the ground that petitioner was doing pairvi in the Civil Court, is not justifiable in the eye of law. It is next submitted that the sufficient reason has been assigned for the delay in filing restoration application at belated stage, therefore, the restoration application should have been allowed rather curtailing the right of the petitioner to contest his title before the court competent. He has laid emphasis that litigant could not be allowed to suffer injustice for the fault of his counsel. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 12.05.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ashok Singh and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 5 Others in Writ-B No-303 of 2022, (Neutral Citation No.-2022:AHC:76578), Rafiq and Others Vs. Munsilal and Others (1981 SCC (2) 788), Smt. Sachi Tiwari and Others Vs. Director of Land Records and Others (A.I.R. 1984 SC 41) and case of Ashok Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (2023 Live Law (SC) 587).

5. Per contra learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by learned Sen