JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Revisional Court dated 18.04.2016 in a revision arising out of proceedings under Section 9 before the Consolidation Officer after being remanded by the judgment of this Court dated 23.01.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 919(Cons.) of 2002. 3. The chequerd history of the case in brief is as under: - 4. It is said that in the year 1961 consolidation proceedings started in the village in question. Proceedings under Section 9 took place between the parties/ their predecessors in interest which was numbered as Partition Case No. 3647 and the same was decided in favour of the petitioners on 24.06.1961. Based thereon, the revenue record was prepared and possession was handed accordingly. As per the contentions of the petitioner the said possession has continued since then. In the year 1990 consolidation proceedings were again held. Publication of Section 9 objections was made on 04.11.1996. At this stage the opposite party no. 2 and 3 filed objections albeit belatedly. The explanation for the delay offered was that they were residing elsewhere as such could not submit the same within time. The Consolidation Officer rejected the application for condonation of delay vide his order dated 22.02.2001 against which a revision was filed by them which was dismissed on 27.03.2001. Being aggrieved he filed writ petition bearing No. 919(Cons.) of 2002 which was allowed on 23.01.2013. The judgment of the C.O., revisional Court and the order passed in review were set-aside and the matter was remanded back to the Consolidation Officer for a decision afresh on the application for condonation of delay. While doing so an objection raised by the petitioners herein that the proceedings were barred by the earlier adjudication in the earlier consolidation proceedings in view of Section 49 was considered and rejected on the ground that the petitioners therein could not be restrained from filing statutory objections under Section 9A of the Act, 1953. 5. However, on a reading of the said judgment the Court is of the view that the purport of the said judgment was only that the provisions of Section 9A being statutory a party can not be stopped from filing an objection, but, it was not the intent of this Court that the bar of Section 49 would not be attracted, if proved. In fact, this issue could only be considered firstly at the level of the Consolidation Officer and had not even been considered extensively in the said writ proceedings, therefore, this is how the said judgment is to be understood. 6. Be that as it may, after remand of the matter as aforesaid the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 28.12.2013 again rejected the application for condonation of delay taking counting limitation from the earlier consolidation proceedings started in the year 1961. He took the view that this objection should have been filed in the year 1961 itself. When his order was challenged in revision the revisional authority set-aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and condoned the delay in filing the objections under Section 9. However, while doing so he appears to have misread the order of the writ Court passed in the earlier writ petition. 7. Be that as it may, the observations in this regard do not have any adverse bearing on the ultimate order passed by him as taking a lenient view on the question of limitation considering the precedents of the Courts in respect of consolidation matters, he has condoned the delay. It is this order of the revisional Court which is under challenge. 8. While entertaining this writ petition no interim order was passed herein and the Court is informed that some application raising objections as to the maintainability of the objections under Section 9 have been raised before the Consolidation Officer and the said proceedings are going on, however, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he is not aware of any such application. 9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the same issue of title and partition having been settled in the earlier consolidation proceedings between the parties and their predecessors in interest, now in view of Section 49 etc., raising of the same issues in the subsequent consolidation proceeding was impermissible, therefore, the revisional Court should not have condoned the delay in filing of the objection in the subsequent consolidation proceedings by the opposite parties whose predecessors in interest were parties in the earlier proceedings and on account which the opposite parties were also bound by the earlier adjudication being their legal heirs. 10. 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the other hand submits that all that has been done at this stage is to condone the delay in filing the objections. As far as the merit of the objections including the maintainability is concerned, that is still open for consideration by the Consolidation Officer and had not been considered by him while rejecting the application for condonation of delay vide his order dated 28.12.2013. In fact the petitioners have filed an application raising the objections as to the maintainability of proceedings which is under process, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for the petitioners to approach this Court at this stage. He also submitted that in fact the earlier proceedings are non existent and the assertion to the contrary is based on fraud. It is for this reason that the petitioners do not want proceedings to go on. 11. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that by the impugned order the revisional Court has condoned the delay in filing the objections. The law is very well settled that exercise of such discretion condoning the delay should not be interfered lightly more so in matters pertaining to consolidation proceedings, for obvious reasons. 12. As far as the contention of the petitioners herein that the proceedings itself not being maintainable the condonation of delay is also not justified nor sustainable is concerned, the Court is of the view that the question of resjudicata/ bar of Section 49 is a matter which will have to be decided in the proceedings and can not be presumed how so ever full proof a case the petitioners may think they have. This can not be done at the stage of considering extension of limitation/ condonation of delay, but, can only be done thereafter. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the matter at this stage. It is, however, provided that the Consolidation Officer shall consider the bar of Section 49 etc. as raised by the petitioners herein and take a decision thereon before proceeding to decide the merits of the case. Let this exercise be done by the Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties as per, law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. 13. as raised by the petitioners herein and take a decision thereon before proceeding to decide the merits of the case. Let this exercise be done by the Consolidation Officer after hearing the parties as per, law within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted. 13. It is made clear that the judgment of this Court dated 21.01.2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 919(Cons.) of 2002 shall not come in the way of the Consolidation Officer in this regard as the observations made therein are only regarding the filing of a statutory objection under Section 9-A and not with regard to the operation of the bar under Section 49 etc. as already observed herein above. Therefore, the Consolidation Officer shall consider the matter independently as per law. 14. It is made clear that this Court has not dwelt upon the merits of the case of the petitioners regarding the bar under Section 49 and the maintainability of the objections of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3, therefore, the Consolidation Officer shall consider the said issue on merits as per law uninfluenced by the dismissal of this writ petition, subject, however, to the observations made herein above. 15. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the pending proceedings.