JUDGMENT S. N. Srivastava, J.—By the impugned order dated 17.5.2001, the Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation recalled the order dated 21st October, 1991, dismissing the appeal in default. A revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed. 2. The matter arises out of proceedings under Section 12 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The appeal filed by contesting opposite party No. 3 was dismissed for non-prosecution. An application for restoration of appeal along with affidavit was filed for setting aside the said order dismissing the appeal in default. This application was supported by an affidavit of Suryadev. In this affidavit contesting opposite party No. 3 has given details relating to cause for non-appearance on the date fixed and has also given the detailed reasons for condonation of delay. The appellate court while considering the restoration application has considered the affidavit and was of the opinion that the cause shown for non-appearance is sufficient and allowed the restoration application dated 27.7.1996 by setting aside the order dated 21.10.1991 dismissing the appeal in default at the cost of Rs. 50. The affidavit in support of the application was believed by the appellate court. The appellate court has considered the rival case of the parties and has also considered the fact that after filing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant told him that after the record of the trial court is received in the appeal, he will intimate the date fixed. Since no intimation was given, he could not appear. Revision was preferred by the present petitioner against the said order recalling the order dismissing the appeal in default which was dismissed on the ground that the delay in filing restoration application was already explained in the affidavit. The revisional court has also held that a client cannot suffer for the fault of the counsel. The revisional court further held that the affidavit filed by the appellant was rightly believed and parties were rightly given opportunity to contest their claim on merits. It was further held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that revisionist (petitioner herein) will not suffer any loss in case the appeal is decided on merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel and considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel. 4. It was further held by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that revisionist (petitioner herein) will not suffer any loss in case the appeal is decided on merits. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel and considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel. 4. The appellate court while restoring the suit has considered and believed the case stated in the affidavits of the parties. Revisional court has also considered the entire case and has found sufficient cause for restoration of the case. 5. The dispute arises out of the proceeding under the provisions of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The dispute which arises under the consolidation proceedings is a State sponsored dispute and everybody in the consolidation area, after notification, is bound to go to the consolidation authorities for protection of his rights. In such disputes created by the State on notification under Section 4, very technical view in the matter of restoration could not be taken. 6. The Apex Court recently in a judgment in Devinder Pal Singh Sehgal and another v. Pratap Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2002 (1) AWC 395 (SC) : (2002) 3 SCC 156 , considered this matter and laid down law in the matter of restoration. The Apex Court has held that “It appears that in the application for restoration, all relevant facts have been stated not only to show that the plaintiffs had sufficient cause for non-appearance on 24.8.1988 but also to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application.” The Apex Court further held that : “Therefore, merely because in the order of the trial court, specifically, there is no reference to petition for condonation of delay, it cannot be said that it did not consider the same. From a bare perusal of the order, it would appear that the grounds stated in the restoration application for non-appearance on 24.8.1988 as well as delay in filing the restoration application having found favour with the trial court, the suit has been restored, therefore, it cannot be said that the order of restoration has been passed without condoning the delay in filing the restoration application.” 7. I am of the view that in case in the affidavit in support of restoration application sufficient cause has already been shown for non-appearance as well as for delay in filing the restoration application and appellate court has believed the affidavit, the order restoring the appeal should not be interfered with on the only ground that there is no reference for condonation of delay. If there is only one affidavit in which cause for non-appearance up to the date of filing of application was explained and that was believed by the Court restoring the suit/appeal, prayer for condonation of delay in filing restoration shall be implicit in the application for restoration which was allowed on merits. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that appellate court has proceeded to consider restoration application on merits without any application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and has relied upon Ragho Singh v. Mohan Singh and others, 2000 (41) ALR 113, in support of his case. He further urged that since there was no application for condonation of delay, the entire order is without jurisdiction. 9. In this regard Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is being quoted below : “5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.—Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.” 10. It is the satisfaction of the appellate authority about the sufficiency of cause on the question of non-appearance on the date of dismissal of the appeal as well as for condonation of delay. In the present case, the appellant has shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the date of dismissal of appeal and explained the delay till the date of filing of the restoration application. The affidavit filed by the appellant was already on the record. The appellate court has believed that affidavit and found sufficient cause for restoration as well as for condonation of delay till the date of filing of the restoration application. This material was already there and both parties were heard on the question of sufficiency of cause. The affidavit filed by the appellant was already on the record. The appellate court has believed that affidavit and found sufficient cause for restoration as well as for condonation of delay till the date of filing of the restoration application. This material was already there and both parties were heard on the question of sufficiency of cause. On satisfying on the question of sufficiency of cause from the materials on the record, the appellate court rightly restored the appeal and directed the parties to appear before him to be heard and the matter to be decided on merits. The case of Ragho Singh v. Mohan Singh and others, 2000 (41) ALR 113 (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner will not help petitioner in the facts of the present case as in that case there was no material on the record before the appellate court by which delay was explained in filing the appeal and in that case, neither any effort was made by the appellant by filing an application for condonation of delay nor any affidavit or any other material was brought by the appellant to the appellate court explaining the delay of ten days in filing the appeal. In the present case, application for restoration was already there with an affidavit in which delay in filing application as well as for non-appearance on the date of dismissal of the appeal was already explained. In that circumstances, the appellate court after hearing parties rightly passed order for restoration of the case. 11. In these circumstances the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case. 12. If the material on record satisfies the appellate court that delay in filing the restoration application to restore the appeal was sufficiently explained and even if a formal application under Section 5 was not made along with the restoration application, the restoration application cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation. Once appellate court is satisfied that from the materials on record, the appeal deserves to be heard on merits and believed the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application, the restoration application should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 13. My view is supported by three cases in Mt. Once appellate court is satisfied that from the materials on record, the appeal deserves to be heard on merits and believed the affidavit filed in support of the restoration application, the restoration application should not be dismissed on the ground of limitation. 13. My view is supported by three cases in Mt. Kulsoomun Nissa and another v. Noor Mohammad alias Sultan Haider and another, AIR 1936 All 666 ; Firm Kaura Mal Bishan Das v. Firm Mathura Das Atma Ram, Ahmedabad and others, AIR (46) 1959 Punj 646 and Meghraj v. Jesraj Kasturjee and another, AIR 1975 Mad 137 . 14. Another ground for not interfering is that the parties have been given full opportunity to contest their matter on merits in appeal in the consolidation proceedings where rights are settled finally and after such orders neither civil court nor revenue court could interfere in such adjudication. The consolidation disputes are disputes which arise on notification under Section 4 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Parties willing or not willing are compelled to go to this forum compulsorily in order to get their rights finally settled. In such a situation, the technical view in the matter of limitation could not be taken and all such technical matters are required to be construed liberally. I do not consider it a fit case for interference on this additional ground also. 15. Learned counsel for petitioner further urged that the matter is pending since long which is causing harassment to the petitioner. 16. In the facts and circumstances, I direct the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to complete the hearing and decide the matter in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. 17. With these observations, writ petition is dismissed in limine.