A formal application for condonation of delay is not necessary; oral requests sufficing with sufficient cause are valid in proceedings under the U.P. Land Revenue Act.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Kumar Nigam, J.

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“(A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2.6.2023 and 31.1.2024 passed by Court of Naib Tehsildar Sadar in Case No. 9426 of 2020 Deoria as well as order dated 28.2.2024 passed by Court of Commissioner Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur in Revision No. 926/23, which is annexed as Annexure No. 1, 2 and 3 to this writ petition.

(B). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent and directing them (respondent No. 3) to direct the parties for maintain status quo on the spot, during the pendncy of the case.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that a dispute arose as to succession of one Janaki Devi, widow of Hari Nandan. Smt. Janaki Devi executed a Will dated 29.10.1993 in favour of the petitioner. The predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 claimed the property in dispute on the basis of Will executed by Hari Nandan, husband of Janaki Devi. In this regard, Mutation Case No. 427 of 1994 was filed by the predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 4 to 6. The aforementioned case was dismissed in default by order dated 08.06.2017 passed by Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil- Sadar, District Deoria-respondent No. 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid mutation case Damadi- predecessor in interest of respondent Nos. 4 to 6 died and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 were substituted in his place. Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 moved an application dated 26.02.2020 before respondent No. 3 for recalling the order dated 08.06.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 dismissing the case in default. Copy of the application is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner filed his objections on 03.03.2022 to the restoration/ recall application filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 pleading inter alia that the said application is not maintainable as there was no application filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. The objections filed by the petitioner are annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 3 vide its order dated 02.06.2023 after considering the objections filed by the petitioner, condoned the delay in filing the restoration application. Copy of the order dated 02.06.2023 is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. Against the order dated 02.06.2023, the petitioner filed a revision before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur–respondent No. 2 which has been dismissed by order dated 28.02.2024. Copy of the order has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. In the meantime, restoration application filed by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 was also allowed by order dated 31.01.2024. Copy of the order dated 31.01.2024 is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. Hence the present writ petition.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no separate application filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the restoration application for recalling the order dated 08.06.2017 and therefore, respondent No. 3 has erroneously condoned the delay in filing the application after considering the objections of the petitioner and the said order is without jurisdiction, in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act. It has been further contend