JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri R.S. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ankit Pandey for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent no. 4. In terms of the earlier order dated 19.11.2020, the learned Senior Counsel has filed a copy of the rejoinder affidavit which is taken on record. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been finally heard at the admission stage itself. 3. A short question is involved in the aforesaid petition. Order dated 26.02.2020 is under challenge whereby the Additional Commissioner (Admin.), Ayodhya Division in Case No. 832 of 2008-09 has allowed the amendment application of the private respondent no. 4. 4. Assailing the aforesaid order, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Revisional Court has not noticed the submissions of the petitioner and in a cursory manner has allowed the amendment holding that amendment is due on account of typographical omission which does not change the nature of the proceedings. 5. It has been submitted that by means of the amendment, the opposite party no. 4 is seeking to introduce a fresh controversy which was not available to be challenged especially when the issue of limitation was first to be decided. 6. Elaborating his submissions, Sri Pandey has submitted that the husband of the petitioner namely Ram Charitra had filed a Regular Suit No. 119-319 under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in respect of the property in question. The aforesaid suit was decided on the basis of a compromise which was duly verified on 16.12.1975 and thereafter the suit came to be decreed in terms of the aforesaid compromise on 19.08.1976. 7. Sri Pandey submits that the judgment and decree passed in the said Regular Suit was never challenged and the same became final and the name of Sri Ram Charitra was also recorded in the revenue record on the basis of the aforesaid decree. 8. It has been submitted that the opposite party no. 4 after 27 years instituted a civil suit bearing No. 262 of 2003 for declaration of his rights over the same land in question. The said suit was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.10.2006. Thereafter the opposite party no. 8. It has been submitted that the opposite party no. 4 after 27 years instituted a civil suit bearing No. 262 of 2003 for declaration of his rights over the same land in question. The said suit was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.10.2006. Thereafter the opposite party no. 4 made an application on 04.12.2003 seeking restoration/recall of the decree which was passed in the suit under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act decided on 19.08.1976. 9. It is further submitted that the SDO by means of order dated 20.11.2008 has rejected the recall application moved by the opposite party no. 4. The same was assailed by filing a Revision and the said Revision was admitted on 29.01.2001 and notices were issued. The petitioner in pursuance thereof had put in appearance. Thereafter the opposite party no. 4 after 9 years moved an application for amendment in the memo of Revision with the prayer that he wanted to assail the order dated 19.08.1976 and 03.09.1976 passed in Regular Suit No. 119/319. This application for amendment has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Ayodhya Division by means of the impugned order dated 26.02.2020. It has further been informed that there is no interim order in the instant petition, however, the opposite party no. 1 has also commenced the hearing of the Revision on merits and therefore it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter may finally be heard and decided. 10. Sri S.P. Tiwari while refuting the aforesaid submissions has submitted that the SDO while rejecting the application for recall by means of order dated 24.11.2008 has also touched the issue regarding the right of the opposite party no. 4 and held that it had no right in the property. It has been submitted that, the opposite party no. 4 claims right in the property in question on the basis of a Will said to be executed by Ram Naresh and Bhagwati. It has been submitted that since the merit as well as the question of limitation has been touched, therefore, it is necessary for the opposite party no. 4 to assail both the orders dated 19.08.1976 as well as the order dated 03.09.1976. 11. It has been submitted that since the merit as well as the question of limitation has been touched, therefore, it is necessary for the opposite party no. 4 to assail both the orders dated 19.08.1976 as well as the order dated 03.09.1976. 11. It has further been submitted by Sri Tiwari that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner in case if the aforesaid two orders are also incorporated in the memo of revision by the aforesaid amendment which has also already been incorporated and thus the aforesaid petition is an abuse of process of law and deserves to be dismissed. 12. Sri Pandey has further submitted in the rejoinder that the Recall Application as moved by the opposite party no. 4 is hugely time barred. It was first, incumbent upon the Court concerned to consider whether the delay in filing the aforesaid application could have been condoned or not. By means of the order dated 24.11.2008 while rejecting the application, the SDO has held that the Recall Application has been filed with huge delay and further that Uma Shanker i.e. the opposite party no. 4 was neither a party in the earlier suit, hence, his application was not maintainable. 13. In view thereof, it has been submitted that unless and until the delay is condoned, challenge to the order dated 19.08.1976 and 03.09.1976 cannot be considered. 14. The Court has considered the rival submissions and has also perused the record. 15. In so far as the facts are concerned, the same are not disputed between the parties, the only issue that remains to be considered is that once an application for recall which has been moved with a delay of more than 26 years has been rejected by means of order dated 24.11.2008 and the same has been assailed in a revision pending before the opposite party no. 1 whether the initial orders dated 19.08.1976 and 03.09.1976 can also be challenged in the same revision by making an amendment and that too after 9 years. 16. 1 whether the initial orders dated 19.08.1976 and 03.09.1976 can also be challenged in the same revision by making an amendment and that too after 9 years. 16. In light of the submissions made by the parties as well as from the perusal of the record, it is clear that where an application for recall is moved after the period of limitation in terms of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, it is incumbent upon the Court or the Authority to first consider the question of limitation even though the same may not be taken as a ground of defence. However, in the present case, a specific objection has been raised regarding the limitation and the SDO has also dismissed the application on the ground of delay. Any reference made by the SDO in its order dated 24.11.2008 that the opposite party no. 4 was not a party to the main proceedings did not have a right to assail, is an allied question. 17. Since the application has been dismissed on the ground of delay, the opposite party no. 4 preferred a Revision. The revision was primarily challenging the order dated 24.11.2008. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the revision is allowed, it is only the order dated 24.11.2008 which can be set aside but the fact remains that whether the order dated 19.08.1976 and 03.09.1976 can be recalled on its own merit within the ambit of provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 is to be seen subsequently after the delay is condoned. 18. Thus, it was not open for the opposite party no. 4 to have assailed the orders dated 19.08.1976 and 03.09.1976 by making an application for amendment in the memo of Revision which was directed against the order dated 24.11.2008. The Revisional Court has committed an error in failing to consider this aspect of the matter and ignoring the objections which were filed in writing by the petitioner. On the perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the Revisional Court has not considered the objections filed by the petitioner and merely treating the amendment to be typographical errors has allowed the same. This indicates that the order has been passed without due application of judicial mind. 19. On the perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the Revisional Court has not considered the objections filed by the petitioner and merely treating the amendment to be typographical errors has allowed the same. This indicates that the order has been passed without due application of judicial mind. 19. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the order dated 26.02.2020 allowing the amendment has not been passed in a sound exercise of jurisdiction and consequently cannot sustain judicial scrutiny, accordingly, is liable to be set aside. 20. Since the Revisional Court is already hearing the Revision against the order dated 24.11.2008, it shall expedite the hearing and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law testing the validity of the order dated 24.11.2008 only. 21. It is made clear that the Revisional Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations of this Court in respect of merits of the Revision as the observations, if any, are only confined to test the validity of the order dated 26.02.2020 relating to the aspect of the amendment alone. 22. With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.02.2020 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.