JUDGMENT R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner against the order passed by Consolidation Officer on 15th March, 1985 an appeal was filed by respondents on 24th August, 1990 alleging that they were not party to the compromise on which basis the order impugned has been passed nor they engaged any counsel to verify their signatures. The order has been obtained by playing fraud and by forging the compromise. The appellate authority by order dated 4th February, 1991 allowed the application moved by the appellant for summoning two Advocates who are alleged to have verified the signatures of the parties on the compromise. This order was challenged before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who by his order dated 9th April, 1991 has postponed the hearing of the revision for another date and by same order he also stayed the operation of the order dated 15th March, 1985 impugned in the appeal, before Settlement Officer Consolidation, Gorakhpur. It is against this order that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I put a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the revision has been decided or not. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that nothing has yet been done and the revision is still pending. As admittedly revision filed by petitioner is pending it was not proper for him to file the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the order dated 4th February, 1991 by which the counsel have been summoned, should not have been passed until Section 5 application for condoning the delay in filing appeal was actually decided. The submission of the learned counsel is that until delay is condoned the authorities do not get jurisdiction to hear appeal pass any order touching merits of the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on 1990 R.D. p. 243, Smt. Munaki Devi and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh and others, I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and have also considered the case law cited by him. In my opinion, the case is clearly distinguishable. In the case cited by learned counsel controversy was that the hearing of Section 5 application was postponed until appeal itself was heard on merits. In my opinion, the case is clearly distinguishable. In the case cited by learned counsel controversy was that the hearing of Section 5 application was postponed until appeal itself was heard on merits. However, in the present case, the allegation in Section 5 application is that the appellants were not party to the compromise and they never engage any counsel nor any counsel ever verified their signatures. In these circumstances, even for deciding application under Section 5 Limitation Act also, the examination of the witnesses summoned was necessary. Settlement Officer Consolidation was thus fully justified in passing order dated 4-2-1991. In my opinion, the authorities below have not committed any error. 3. The writ petition has no force and in, accordingly, dismissed.