JUDGMENT I. MAHANTY, J. : Shri Baladevjew Endowment Bije at Ichhapur has filed the present writ application being represented by the Executive Officer seeking to challenge the order dated 23.12.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Consolidation in Revision Petition No.2001 of 1998 filed under Section 37(1) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation of Lands Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Consolidation Act’). By the impugned order, the Commissioner refused to interfere with an earlier order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Remand Revision Petition No.1131/1991 and refrained from entertaining the petition filed by the present petitioner to recall the witnesses examined by opposite party No.3 for cross examination. 2. Babaji Krushna Chandra Das, Opp.Party No.3 had filed Revision Case No.1131 of 1991 under Section 37(1) of the Consoli¬dation Act before the Commissioner who after hearing both the sides remanded the matter to the Consolidation Officer (Opp.Party No.2) for disposal. After remand, the present petitioner did not appear before the Consolidation Officer and on 15.1.1994, the present Opp.Party No.3 examined three witnesses including him¬self. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid three witnesses were examined before the present petitioner had engaged any advocate to represent him in the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that on 24.1.1994, the present petitioner (Opp.Party in the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer) entered appear¬ance through his counsel and on 8.7.1994 the petitioner filed an application before the Consolidation Officer seeking recall of the witnesses examined on 15.1.1994 for cross-examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since no order was passed on the application of the petitioner filed on 8.7.1994, for the self-same reason the petitioner filed another petition on 14.5.1998 which was ultimately rejected by the Con¬solidation Officer by his order dated 30.6.1998. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition (Annexure-3) before the Consol¬idation Officer on 10.7.1998 once again for recalling the wit¬nesses examined on 15.1.1994 for cross-examination as well as to recall the order dated 30.6.1998 and this application as well was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 12.8.1998 (Annexure-4). 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another petition (Annexure-3) before the Consol¬idation Officer on 10.7.1998 once again for recalling the wit¬nesses examined on 15.1.1994 for cross-examination as well as to recall the order dated 30.6.1998 and this application as well was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 12.8.1998 (Annexure-4). 3. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation officer dated 12.8.1998, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner of Consolidation-Opp.Party No.1 which was registered as Revision case No.2001 of 1998 and the said revision was also rejected by the Commissioner by his order dated 23.12.2002 (Annexure-1) refusing to interfere with the order dated 12.8.1998 passed by the Consolidation Officer. Hence, the present writ application has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 23.12.2002 (Annexure-1) passed by the Commissioner in Revision Case No.2001 of 1998. 4. The contention of Mr. A. P. Bose,learned counsel for the petitioner in the present writ petition is that the original application for recalling the witnesses for cross-examination was filed on 24.1.1994 and despite such an application being filed, the Consolidation Officer did not pass any order thereon for a period of more than four years thereby compelling the petitioner to file another application on 14.5.1998. It is further submitted that the order of rejection dated 12.8.1998 (Annexure-4) to recall the witnesses for cross-examination cannot be termed as an order under any of the aforesaid sections as the same was an interlocutory order and was not appealable, but revisable under Section 37(1) of the Act before the Commissioner. 5. Mr. K. N. Jena, learned counsel appearing for Opp.Party No.3, on the other hand, placing reliance upon the averments made by the Opp.Party in the counter affidavit, inter alia, contended that the writ application ought to be dismissed since there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner on 23.12.2002 in Revision Case No.2001 of 1998 on the ground that the petitioner all along was not co-operating nor participating in the proceeding before the Consolidation Officer by taking some plea or the other and filing of this writ application is only a dilatory tactics to harass the Opp.Party. He further submitted that since the grounds taken in the writ application are not bona fide, untenable and baseless, the writ application is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that since the grounds taken in the writ application are not bona fide, untenable and baseless, the writ application is liable to be dismissed. Shri Jena submitted that his client (O.P. No.3) has filed T.S. No.106 of 1978 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the land in question and while the said suit was pending, consolidation operation commenced in the area in which the land in question is situated. Therefore, Opp.Party No.3 filed objection case Nos.2990, 2991, 2992 and 2993 of 1984 before the Consolidation Officer, Opp.Party No.3 Shri Jena further submitted that the present petitioner is going on delaying the matter even though this Court while disposing of Civil Revision No.929 of 1989 on 30.1.1990 observed that the Consolidation Authority should dispose of the case at an early date. According to Shri Jena, taking advantage of the old age and health condition of Opp.Party No.3, the petitioner is delaying adjudication of the matter. He further submitted that the original order of rejection of the petitioner’s application for recalling the witnesses was passed on 16.8.1998 more than four years have passed since then till the date of filing of the present writ application. Accord¬ing to Shri Jena, when the evidence in the case before the Con¬solidation Officer has been closed since 8.7.1994 in all respect by both the parties and the case is reserved for orders, the filing of the present writ application is merely to delay the final outcome of the case and to procrastinate the same. 6. Taking into consideration the rival contentions advanced by both the parties, I am of the view that since both the parties to the litigation before the Commissioner in R.P. Case No.1131 of 1991 were heard and the order of remand to the Consolidation Officer was passed in presence of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, thereafter, there was no justification for the petitioner for not having appeared person¬ally or through his counsel before the Consolidation Officer. Therefore, the petitioner ought not be given the benefit of his own default. In essense, the petitioner is seeking to take advan¬tage of the fact that he had not appeared nor engaged any counsel on 15.1.1994 i.e. the date on which the present Opp.Party No.3 had examined three witnesses in support of his claim. Therefore, the petitioner ought not be given the benefit of his own default. In essense, the petitioner is seeking to take advan¬tage of the fact that he had not appeared nor engaged any counsel on 15.1.1994 i.e. the date on which the present Opp.Party No.3 had examined three witnesses in support of his claim. It is well settled in law that no person can be permitted to take advantage of his own mistake to the detriment of the other person. Even apart from the above, the claim of the petitioner that he had filed an application for recalling the witnesses on 8.7.1994, but that the same was not dealt with and no order was passed thereon for four years is apparently false. The so called application stated to have been filed on 8.7.1994 is not on record nor copy of the same has been annexed to the present writ application. This fact is also proved from the application for recalling the witnesses filed by the petitioner on 14.5.1998, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ application. No where in the said petition is there any mention that the petitioner had filed a similar application at any time earlier. Therefore, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner that he had originally filed an application for recalling the witnesses for their cross-examination on 8.7.1994 is absolutely false and baseless. Further, the petitioner filed on 14.5.1998 for recalling the witnesses was rejected by the Consolidation Officer on 30.6.1998. Again the petitioner filed another petition for re¬calling the witnesses and to recall the order dated 30.6.1998, which was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer by his order dated 12.8.1998 (Annexure-4). The order passed by the Consolida¬tion Officer is a detailed order wherein he has noted as follows : “the oral evidence has been closed since 8.7.94 in all respect by both the parties and thereafter the case was reserved for orders.” The Consolidation Officer in his order Annexure-4 further noted that he has explained to the advocate appearing for the Opp.Party (present petitioner) that it will be just a futile attempt and time killing since the deposition of P.Ws. 1 to 3 was recorded on 15.1.94 will no way affect the case of the petitioner nor the case of the Opp.Party eve if since deposition would be excluded from the evidence because adequate number of documents are there with the parties with regard to the possession. The Consolidation Officer has further recorded his exasperation by holding that the petition was filed by the petitioner not only with a view to consume further time, but also for no good reason and for no justification. He also recorded that case could create a history in Kendrapara Consolidation Range that a case is subju¬dice in the Court of the Consolidation Officer for a period of more than five years and this case is being lingered for such a long time without any salient point and good reasons and any substantial ground. Even in revision before the Commissioner of Consolidation, the Commissioner upheld the order passed by the Consolidation Officer and similarly came to a finding that the petition filed by the petitioner was only for killing time and making delay in disposal of the matter. 7. I am in respectful agreement with the conclusion ar¬rived at by the Consolidation Officer and the Commissioner of Consolidation in the impugned order. I do not find any good reason to interfere with the matter and hence the writ applica¬tion is dismissed with a direction to the Consolidation Officer to conclude the proceeding pending before him within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. Application dismissed.