The sufficiency of cause must be the focus in applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, not previous conduct or merits of prior orders.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard Shri M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Shashwat Srivastava for the private respondents.

2. At the outset, it may be noticed that Shri Shashwat Srivastava and Shri U.S. Sahai had already put in appearance on behalf of respondents no.5 and 12 on caveat and today he has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the remaining respondents no.2, 4, 6, 11 and 13 and thus all the contesting parties are now represented. The respondents no.14 to 18 are proforma parties who did not contest the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

3. Accordingly with the consent of the counsel for the parties, the petition is being decided finally at the admission stage itself without calling for any counter-affidavit.

4. Shri M. E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that an application for recall which was accompanied by an application under section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT 1963 has been rejected by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur by means of the impugned order dated 20.09.2024.

5. The precise submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while rejecting the application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT , the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not only entered into the merits of the controversy but the Deputy Director of Consolidation primarily was influenced by the previous conduct of the petitioners and on the aforesaid basis the application has been rejected whereas the Deputy Director of Consolidation ought to have made an objective assessment of the cause shown which has not been done and thus not only the impugned order is bad in the eyes of law but it also forecloses the right of the petitioners to contest the proceedings on merit which is engaging the attention of the authorities since 1984. It is thus urged that for the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. Shri U.S. Sahai and Shri Shashwat Srivastava while defending the order has submitted that the Court concerned while passing the impugned order as merely taken note of the series of facts in order to ascertain as to whether any specific and sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay and it cannot be said that the court has entered into the merits. Since no case for condonation of delay was made out and the application under Section 5 was rejected, hence as a necessary corollary the recall application also has been dismissed and such an order does not require any interference from the Court.

7. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record.

8. It is not disputed that the parties have been litigating since long. In the earlier round of litigation the matter had come up before this Court in Writ Petition No.29056 (Cons.) of 2016 which was decided by means of order dated 24.02.2020 and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had relegated the matter to the revisional court for hearing on merits of the application for condonation of delay alongwith application for recall. A copy of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 24.02.2020 has been placed on record as annexure no.12.

9. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it clearly indicates that the revisional court was directed to consider the application for condonation of delay first and in case if it found favour with the court and the delay was condoned, then the application for recall was to be heard on its own merits.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop, if the order impugned is perused, it would indicate that apart fro