JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - By the impugned order dated 2-1-1991, order dated 7-8-1989 passed by the Consolidation Officer condoning delay in filing objection, has been set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer condoning delay in filing objection was perfectly correct but the same has been wrongly set aside by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that impugned order is correct and same does not deserve to be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. As suggested by the learned counsel for the parties petition is being disposed of finally. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that under Section 5 of Limitation Act Consolidation Officer has condoned the delay in filing objection, Deputy Director of Consolidation should not have set aside that order as these are the statutorily imposed litigation's hence lenient view should be taken in the matters of condoning delay so that parties may get opportunity of being heard on merits. 6. In view of the premises aforesaid petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 2-1-1991 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is quashed. Settlement Officer Consolidation is directed to dispose of appeal on merits within 90 days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. There shall be no order as to costs.