JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court dated 3-8-1987 whereby the case has been remanded to the Consolidation Officer, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me is that the revisional court has patently erred in allowing the revision Sion and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer without applying his mind to the question of limitation involved m the case. According to the petitioner the revision petition was belated and unless the revisional court had applied its mind to the question of limitation, it could not entertain the revision Petition. 3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has supported the impugned Judgement dated 3-8-1987 on the ground that the revisional court has done substantial justice between the parties. Therefore, the order should not be quashed, The second submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite part, is to the effect that the Consolidation Officer had not complied with the direction contained in the order of remand passed by the revisional court in the year 1980. Therefore, the revisional court was fully justified in passing the impugned order dated 3-8-1987 and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer. The third submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite party is to the effect that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be deemed in the eye of law that delay had been condoned by the revisional court and the decision of the revisional court being good on merit, should not be interfered with. 4. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is well known by now that unless the court applies its mind to the question of limitation, it cannot be inferred that the court has condoned the delay. The submission made on behalf of the contesting opposite party on the question of deemed condonation of delay in the facts and circumstances of the presort case is not acceptable to me. In various decisions of this Court, it has been stated that unless the court applies its mind to the question of limitation and condones the delay it has no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the parties on merit. In various decisions of this Court, it has been stated that unless the court applies its mind to the question of limitation and condones the delay it has no jurisdiction to decide the claim of the parties on merit. From this angle, I find that the impugned Judgement of the revisional court dated 3-8-1987 suffers from patent error of law and deserves to be quashed. 5. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party that substantial justice has been done between the parties and that the decision of the revisional court is correct on merit and it need not be interfered with. I think that if the court has no jurisdiction its findings could not be sustainable in the eye of law being not in accordance with law as it would work great hardship on the party against which it has been rendered. However, it is not necessary to examine this submission any further. The impugned Judgement appears to be patently erroneous in view of the circumstance that the revisional court had not applied its mind to the question of limitation involved in the present case. 6. Before me, a copy of the application for condonation of delay has been filed which is being challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner Therefore, it has become necessary to direct the revisional court to apply its mind to the question of limitation and thereafter determine the claim of the parties strictly in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned Judgement of the revisional court dated 3-8-1987 is hereby quashed and the revisional court is directed to re-examine the claims of the parties and it should address itself to the question of limitation involved in the revision petition filed by the contesting opposite party. It would be open to the parties to raise all legal and factual questions before the court which shall decide them strictly in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.