JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar , J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners impugning the orders passed by opposite parties 1 and 2, the certified copies of which have been annexed as Annexures 7 and 5 respectively. Id the basic year the petitioners namely Ganesh Bux Singh and Smt. Shiv Raj Kumar were recorded as tenure-holders. Opposite party No. 2 Shiv Ram Singh claimed rights over the plots in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. The objection filed by opposite party No. 3 was rejected by means of order dated January 31, 1974 passed by the Consolidation Officer. It appears that petitioners had admitted the possession of opposite party No. 3 Shiv Ram Singh but it was not admitted that he was in any adverse possession and it appears to be the case of the petitioners that the opposite party No. 3 was in possession with the consent of the petitioner. The above position is clearly indicated in the order passed by the Consolidation Officer, a certified copy of which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The Consolidation Officer, while rejecting the objection filed by opposite party No. 3, observed that opposite party No. 3 had failed to prove this case of adverse possession. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Consolidation Officer Shiv Ram Singh filed an appeal which had been allowed by means of order dated November 21, 1974 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation), Lucknow, camp Sitapur. A copy of memo of appeal has also been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition to show that Smt. Shiv Raj Kumar had not been impleaded as one of the respondents in the appeal, only petitioner No. 1 namely Ganesh Bux Singh was impleaded as the sole respondent. Although in the appellate order it has been mentioned that the respondent did not turn up in spite of notice but this fact had been denied by the petitioner No. 1 who had asserted that he had no notice or knowledge about the appeal which had been decided on his back without notice. Although in the appellate order it has been mentioned that the respondent did not turn up in spite of notice but this fact had been denied by the petitioner No. 1 who had asserted that he had no notice or knowledge about the appeal which had been decided on his back without notice. The petitioner filed a revision against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer (Consolidation) allowing the appeal of opposite party No. 3 Shiv Ram Singh by which it was directed that from Gata No. 511 names of Ganesh Bux Singh and others may be expunged and in their place the name of Shiv Ram Singh, son of Prahlad Singh, be recorded as Sirdar. It appears that along with the revision petition the petitioner applied for condonation of delay in filing the revision before the opposite party No. 1. The reason shown appears to be that they had knowledge about the appeal and its decision and that they had come to know about it only on July 26, 1977 when a reference was made. It appears this the revision was filed on August 30, 1977. Under Rule 111 of the Rules framed under Consolidation of Holdings Act, the period prescribed for filing the revision is thirty days The opposite party No. 1 while dismissing the revision on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation observed that the copy of the judgment passed in appeal was applied for on August 17, 1978 (78 appears to be incorrect as the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that the revision was filed on August 30, 1977). The learned Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that no explanation has been furnished for applying for the copy of the order after such a great delay. In this connection reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner on a case reported in Ramakant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Others, AIR 1975 All 126 (Full Bench). On the basis of the said decision it has been submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have suo motu examined the records despite the fact that there was some defect in the revision application. On the basis of the said decision it has been submitted that the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have suo motu examined the records despite the fact that there was some defect in the revision application. From the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation it appears that the main ground for which he did not condone the delay was that the petitioners had applied for copy of the order after a long time, even though the fact of decision of appeal had come to their notice. According to the petitioner's case they had con: to know about the decision of appeal on July 26, 1977. The revision was filed on August 30, 1977 so the delay, if at all, would be that of four of fit days. May be that there would be no delay if the copy of the order pant: in appeal was applied for within the period of limitation as in that case the copying days would also be available to the petitioner. In my view the revision petition of the petitioners should not have been thrown only on the ground that the copy of the order passed by the appellate authority was so applied for immediately after, the fact of decision of appeal bad come to its notice of the petitioners. 2. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by opposite party No. 1 dated September 28, 1978, contained in Annexure 7, is hereby quashed and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to restore the revision to its original number and decide the same on merit Since the matter has become too old it is further directed that the opposite party No. 1 shall finally decide the revision expeditiously without further delaying the matter. There will be no order as to costs.