N. B. ASTHANA, J. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari quashing the judgment of respondents Nos. 1 to 2, dated 14-5-79 and 19-9-78 Annexure Nos. 10 and 3 respectively to the writ petition. 2. The dispute between the parties relates to plots Nos. 9/2. 06 acres, 60/2. 76 acres, 79/0. 66 acre and 84/ 3. 05 acres in village Masgawan, pargana and tahsil Maudaha, district Hamirpur. 3. It is said that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 during the consolidation operation filed an objection under section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short act) with a prayer for condoning the delay in filing objection. This objection is said to be beyond time by one year. Smt. Sukhia Devi, wife of Kare Lai, resident of village Biwar, pargana Maudaha filed an affidavit in support of the objection. She did not disclose in the affidavit as to how she is related to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 but stated that respondent No. 4 Radhey Lal is an idiot and is under her guardianship. Respondent No. 3 Sita Ram was ill and was suffering from jaundice since the beginning of the month of August, 1977. In his illness the deponent remained busy and for that reason she could not file the objection within time. The papers were with the lawyer, at Hamirpur and when the respondent No. 3 became alright, she went there, took papers and filed the objection. This affidavit was filed on 28-8-78. Upon this objection, Asstt. Consolidation Officer submitted a report stating that the disputes under section 9 of the Act relating to this village have been decided and published on 3-8-1977 and since the objection is beyond time it should be rejected. The Consolidation Officer by his judgment and order, dated 19-9-1978 condoned the delay. Aggrieved by this judgment, the petitioner filed a revision before respondent No. 1 i. e. Deputy Director of Consolidation. An affidavit was also filed in support of the grounds of revision. He also filed certified copy of objection of cases Nos. 3351 and 3352 relating to village Barethi, certified copy of the objection in case no. . 2322 relating to village Bihuni, certified copies of order sheet of both the cases showing the date of filing objections and also the order sheet, dated 5-6-78. He also filed certified copy of objection of cases Nos. 3351 and 3352 relating to village Barethi, certified copy of the objection in case no. . 2322 relating to village Bihuni, certified copies of order sheet of both the cases showing the date of filing objections and also the order sheet, dated 5-6-78. The contesting respondents filed objection under section 9 of the Act in respect of certain plots situate in village Barethi, pargana Muskara, tahsil Maudaha, Hamirpur on 9-9-1977. It was said in the affidavit that it was wrongly stated by the contesting respondents that they were all ill on that date or that the respondent No. 4 is an idiot. Another objection in respect of case no. 2322 was filed by the respondents, on 17-10-1977. It is said that when these respondents filed objections on 9-9-1977 and 17-10-1977 in respect of land situate in village Barethi and Bihuni. It is false to say that respondent No. 3 was ill from August 1977 to 28-8-1978. The petitioner also filed in the revision the order sheet of cases Nos. 2322, 3351 and 3352 bearing the signatures of contesting respondents on 17-10-1977 and 9-9-1977. It is said that these documents clearly prove that neither the respondent No. 4 was an idiot nor respondent No. 3 was ill. The order sheet, dated 5-6-1978 was also filed showing that cases Nos. 3351 and 3352 were dismissed in default on 11-5-1978 and on the same date an application was moved for restoring them which application was allowed on 5-6-78 by the Consolidation Officer. It was further said that all these papers filed by the petitioner as additional evidence were admitted by respondent no. 1 upon payment of Rs. 30 as costs. These costs were paid which were accepted by the contesting respondents. No papers in rebuttal were filed. The respondent No. 1, vide order dated 14-5-1979 dismissed the revision of the petitioner but he did not consider the additional evidence filed by the petitioner and accepted by the respondent No. 1 in the revision. It is said that the respondent No. 1 committed a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record in not considering the additional evidence adduced in the case. 4. It is said that the respondent No. 1 committed a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record in not considering the additional evidence adduced in the case. 4. Smt. Sukhma Devi, wife of Radhey Lal, respondent No. 4 filed counter affidavit stating that the respondent No. 4 is not sound mind and that she is doing pairvi on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. In this affidavit it was not disputed that the papers filed by the petitioner were admitted by the respondent No. 1 that the costs awarded were also accepted by the counsel for respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It was, however, asserted that the application for condonation of delay was filed with correct allegations and that the application was correctly allowed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on. record. No body appeared on behalf of the respondents to contest the petition. 6. It has clearly been established ;that some papers relevant for contesting the application for condonation of delay were filed by the petitioner and accepted in evidence by respondent No. 1 on payment of cost which were also accepted by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It was, therefore^ incumbent upon the respondent No. 1 to consider these documents and then come to the conclusion whether sufficient cause existed. for condoning the delay or not ? It was no doubt correct that no counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer opposing the application under section 5 of Limitation Act. This would have been one of the relevant considerations for decision by the respondent No. 1. But at the same time he could not have ignored the papers filed in revision. The respondent No. 1 should also have considered these papers and then should have come to the conclusion on the basis of a consideration of these papers and the other material available on record whether sufficient ground existed for the Consolidation Officer to condone the delay. From a perusal of the order, dated 14-54979 passed by respondent No. 1 it would appear that he relied upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by Smt. Sukhma Devi and rejected the revision mainly on the ground that no counter affidavit was filed. From a perusal of the order, dated 14-54979 passed by respondent No. 1 it would appear that he relied upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by Smt. Sukhma Devi and rejected the revision mainly on the ground that no counter affidavit was filed. He should have also considered the papers filed by the petitioner in revision and on the basis of the consideration of these papers and the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents Nos, 3 and 4 before the Asstt. Consolidation Officer regarding which no counter affidavit was filed, should have come to the conclusion whether there was sufficient ground for condoning the delay or not ? His judgment has been vitiated on account of the non-consideration of the documents filed and accepted in revision. The judgment passed by him cannot, therefore, be sustained. The writ petition is allowed in part. The judgment and order, dated 14-5-1979 (Annexure 10) passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed. He is directed to decide afresh the revision filed by the petitioner before him in accordance with law and in the light of the observation:, made in the body of the judgment. The prayer for quashing the order, dated 19-9-1978 (Annexure No. 3) passed by respondent No. 2 is refused because it is for the respondent No. 1 to adjudicate as to whether the aforesaid order is sustainable or not ? In the circumstances parties would bear their own cost of this writ petition. Petition partly allowed. .