R.S. Shukla, J.

In this case the revisional order of the Commissioner, Raipur Division, setting aside the sale of Khasra No. 85/7 (0.04 acre) in village Fafadih, tahsil and district Raipur has been challenged by the auction-purchaser (applicant) on a number of grounds. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, restricted his arguments to the following grounds only.

(1) Revision application before the Commissioner was time-barred. He did not pass a specific order condoning the delay. It would not therefore, be proper to infer such condonation by implication.

(2) The Commissioner should not have directly revised the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer as the Collector had already disposed of the order of the Sub-Divi3ional Officer in revision.

(3) Para. 33, Schedule II, M. P. Land Revenue Code bars the remedy by way of revision before the Commissioner. In case no application is made under rule 29 ibid the only remedy left for an aggrieved party is to go to the civil Court.

Before I deal with the grounds mentioned above the facts of the case may briefly be mentioned. The plot in question which was originally held by one Smt. Indira Prabha and passed on to one Jiwaram by a regist