JUDGMENT U. C. Srivastava, J. - The petitioner feeling aggrieved from the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation refusing to condone the delay of 6 years in filing the revision application has filed this writ petition. The petitioner is a soldier. It appears that opposite party No. 6 Ram Karan was doing pairvi on his behalf. An objection was filed by four persons before the Consolidation Officer in which cotenureholder's rights were claimed. Gokul filed an appeal in respect of those persons which was allowed. The petitioner also filed an appeal which was dismissed. Some six years thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation pleading that he was not a party to the revision petition filed by Gokul and he was not aware of the earlier proceedings. A counteraffidavit was filed by the opposite parties in which it was asserted that the petitioner was aware about the same. The Deputy Director of Consolidation refused to condone the delay on the ground that the petitioner did not state that he was in the village when consolidation operations started in the village or at the time when proceedings were taken by Gokul. As such no case for condonation of delay has been made out. The observation made by the Deputy Director of Consolidation may be correct but the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have seen whether there was any prima facie case on merit and if there was any prima facie case on merit, the Deputy Director of Consolidation could have exercised suo motu power, but he did not do so. As such the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation can be interfered with. 2. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 2041971 (Annexure 5) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed and he is directed to see whether there is any prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and may exercise suo motu power in the case. There will be no order as to costs.