IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 742 of 2009 (M/S) Sri Baljeet & Others ……… Petitioners Versus Sri Gordhan & Others ……… Respondents June 5, 2009 Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the caveators/respondents. HON’BLE DHARAM VEER, J. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 7.2.2009 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation/Collector, Haridwar, whereby the revision preferred by petitioners under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short, the Act) against the order of the Consolidation Officer, Roorkee dated 25.7.2007 has been rejected. Copies of the aforesaid judgment and orders dated 7.2.2009 and 25.7.2007 are annexed as Annexure No. 7 & 5 to the writ petition respectively. 2. The dispute relates to the share of land in khata no. 330. Proceedings under Section 9-A(2) of the Act were initiated and on 7.8.1998, when the parties did not appear before the Consolidation Officer, ex parte proceedings were drawn against them and shares of the parties were determined on the same day. Thereafter respondents filed restoration application along with delay condonation application on 15.10.2001 before the Consolidation Officer, which was allowed vide order dated 25.7.2007, Annexure 5 to the writ petition. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 25.7.2007, the petitioners filed a revision before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, which was rejected vide impugned judgment and order dated 7.2.2009, Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved, petitioners have preferred this petition against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 7.2.2009. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. On 7.8.1998, the Consolidation Officer drew ex parte proceedings and decided the case and shares of the parties were determined. Respondents filed restoration application belatedly on the ground that the aforesaid order came to their knowledge when they saw the Akarpatra 5 of khata no. 330, in which they were entitled to get 1/4th share but they have been allocated only 1/8th share. The Consolidation Officer rejected the objections of the petitioners and allowed the time barred restoration application condoning the delay in filing thereof. Revision preferred by the petitioners against the said order of Consolidation Officer was also rejected by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation vide the impugned judgment and order. 6. Evidently, only the time barred restoration application of the respondents has been allowed, and the case has not been finally decided. It is undisputed that shares were determined by the Consolidation Officer after drawing the ex parte proceedings. Respondents dispute the share allocated to them and claims more share in the disputed land. It is settled law that parties should get the proper opportunity of hearing and benefit of the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be extended in the interest of justice. In this case, delay in moving the restoration application was properly explained by the respondents by the sufficient cause and, therefore, the same has rightly been allowed. Moreover, petitioners are not in any loss on account of setting aside the ex parte order dated 7.8.1998 and the dispute remains to be finally decided on the merits of the case. As such, I am of the opinion that the courts below have taken the correct view. 7. In view of my foregoing discussion, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. No interference is called for in the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Dharam Veer, J.) 05.06.2009 PRABODH