JUDGMENT M.P.Singh, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed against an order dated 12-7-1982 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur. 2. The short facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 3 filed a time barred objection on 14-11-1981. The said objection was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The matter was contested by the petitioner. The Consolidation Officer by an order dated 20-5-1981 has condoned the delay and directed the parties to appear on a particular date for evidence. Against this order, the petitioner filed a Revision under Section 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act before the Deputy Director of Consolidation The Revisional court refused to exercise the jurisdiction on the ground that the discretion has been properly exercised by the Consolidation Officer. Against the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard Sri Shri Kant, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sankatha Rai, counsel for the respondents. 4. The only point argued by the counsel for the petitioner is that both the Consolidation Officer as well as the Deputy Director of Consolidation have not applied their minds to the merits of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. After a perusal of the two orders, I am of the view that though both the consolidation authorities have not discussed in detail about the explanation given by the opposite party No. 3 but after a consideration of the same, the delay has been condoned. So far as the order condoning the delay is concerned, it is discretionary in nature and nothing has been shown to me that this discretion is based on extraneous considerations. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1964 Allahabad 534 Babu Ram Ashok Kumar v. Antarim Zila Parishad, wherein it has been held that : "A court of appeal would not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the court below, if the discretion has been exercised in good faith, after giving due weight to relevant matters and without being swayed by irrelevant matters. If two views are possible on the question, then also the court of appeal would not interfere even though it may exercise discretion differently where the case to come initially before it. The exercise of discretion should manifestly be wrong." 5. If two views are possible on the question, then also the court of appeal would not interfere even though it may exercise discretion differently where the case to come initially before it. The exercise of discretion should manifestly be wrong." 5. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot investigate into the question of facts. Since the impugned orders are discretionary in nature, I think the ends of justice would be amply met in case the case is sent back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter on merits. 6. The writ petition is dismissed with costs. The Consolidation Officer is directed to decide the objection within two months of the presentation of a certified copy of this order before him. Petition dismissed.