JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - The writ application is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement, allowing the revision of the present opposite parties to 2 to 7. 2. Though several contentions have been raised, it is unnecessary to deal with them as in view of the defective procedure adopted by the Commissioner, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded for fresh disposal. 3. It appears that the revision petition was filed after the prescribed period of limitation. On 21.2.1998 in the first order, the Commissioner directed "Issue notice to opposite parties fixing 11.3.1998 for hearing on admission and merit". On 11.3.1998 it appears that the Commissioner admitted the revision petition and heard counsels for the parties and passed the following order : "The O.P. 2 was said to be dead and Was deleted. Her legal heir, O.P.1 is already on record. The other O. Ps. were absent on calls and were set ex parte. The delay was condoned. Orders were reserved and time was allowed to file the written notes of arguments and documents, if any." Thereafter, in the subsequent order, the revision has been allowed. 4. One of the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner relates to the question of condonation of delay without serving any notice. It has been asserted that no notice on the limitation petition had been issued to the present petitioner, and the delay in filing the revision had been condoned even without indicating any reason for such condonation of delay. Though opposite parties 2 to 7 have entered appearance through advocate, no counter affidavit has been filed challenging such assertions made in the writ application. 5. To confirm about the correctness of the assertions made in the writ application, I had called for the records. A persual of the records, does not indicate that there was any direction for issuing notice on the question of limitation. The first order states about issuing notice on admission and merit. Even the other papers available or record do not indicate that in fact, the limitation petition had been served on the counsel. In AIR 1918 P.C. 135 (Sunderbai and Anr. v. Collector of Belgaun and Ors.), the practice of entertaining a matter on merit without first condoning delay after hearing both parties had been deprecated. Even the other papers available or record do not indicate that in fact, the limitation petition had been served on the counsel. In AIR 1918 P.C. 135 (Sunderbai and Anr. v. Collector of Belgaun and Ors.), the practice of entertaining a matter on merit without first condoning delay after hearing both parties had been deprecated. Similar view has been expressed in ILR 1961 Cuttack 169 (Municipal Councillors of Puri Municipality v. Madhusudan Das Mohapatra). In the present case, the first order indicates that the Commissioner had issued notice of hearing on admission and merit. Delay had not been condoned. It is of course true that sometimes in order to avoid unnecessary prolongation, notice on the question of limitation as well as on the main petition itself is issued. In the present case such a procedure had not been adopted. Without serving a copy of limitation, the order condoning delay, that too without giving any reason appears to be vulnerable. Since the order relating to condonation of delay was illegal, the subsequent order allowing the revision cannot be sustained. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner for fresh disposal. A copy of the limitation petition shall be served on the present petitioner by the present opposite parties 2 to 7. Thereafter, after giving opportunity of hearing on the question of limitation, the Commissioner shall proceed to dispose of the question of condonation of delay in accordance with law. It is made clear that no opinion has been expressed relating to the merit of the contentions raised by both the parties. The writ application is disposed of. The parties are directed to appear before the Commissioner on 28th August, 2000.