JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Although this writ petition arises out of the orders passed in the mutation proceedings, the facts as mentioned in the pleadings on record are so glaring that this Court feels justified to show interference in writ jurisdiction. 3. It has been submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had challenged the order dated 4.6.2018 passed by the Tehsildar, Rehra, Tehsil Utraula, District Balrampur, by which without condoning the delay, the recall application filed by the contesting respondent No. 3 had been allowed and the earlier order issued by the Tehsildar concerned regarding mutation of the name of the petitioner on the property in question had been stayed. The Revisional Court declined to entertain the Revision by making observation that the Revision was filed with a delay and that it was against the interlocutory order. Yet from the perusal of the order of the Revisional Court, it appears that the Revisional Court has also mentioned on the merits of the case which it could not have done after saying that the Revision was not maintainable. Moreover, while observing on the merits of the case, the Revisional Court also found that the Tehsildar in question had violated several circulars issued by the Board of Revenue that no orders be passed by the Revenue Courts except on bar coded order-sheet. 4. It was noted by the Revisional Court in this Case that the Tehsildar has passed the orders on the application itself moved by the applicant without issuing notice. The Revisional Court i.e. the Additional Commissioner, Administration First, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, directed the Collector concerned to take action against the Tehsildar for the lapse on his part in conducting the proceedings, yet failed to interfere in the order impugned. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. 6. The Revisional Court i.e. the Additional Commissioner, Administration First, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, directed the Collector concerned to take action against the Tehsildar for the lapse on his part in conducting the proceedings, yet failed to interfere in the order impugned. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon two judgments passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. 6. In Writ B. No. 15248 of 2014 : Wasim Raza Khan v. Board of Revenue and others, decided on 11.03.2014, this Court had relied upon another judgment in Prabhu and another v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others 2013 (118) RD 48, wherein this Court has observed that once the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed, unless delay is condoned, no order can be passed on it and the delay cannot be condoned without having the version of other side and that the other side is required to be sent notice and heard. This Court however refused to interfere only because it found that if it interfered in the order impugned, another illegal order will revive. 7. In Writ Petition No. 9158 (M/S) of 2019: Bansraj v. Apar Commissioner (Administrative) Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and others, this Court disposed of the writ petition on 24.7.2019 with the observation that the Tehsildar ought to have issued notice on the application of condonation of delay in filing the restoration application/recall application by the applicant instead of putting the stay order in abeyance for which recall had been prayed for. The Revisional Court did not interfere in the order only because it found the order to be interlocutory in nature. This Court set aside the order passed by the Tehsildar and that of the Revisional Court and remanded the matter to the Tehsildar to consider the application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration/recall application and then pass appropriate orders thereon and in the meantime stayed the alienation of the property in question. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 31024 (M/S) of 2019: Ram Niwas v. Additional Commissioner (Admin) Devi Patan Mandal, Balrampur and others, sic (Gonda), wherein this Court while referring the earlier orders in Wasim Raza Khan (supra) and Bansraj (supra) had disposed of the writ petition by asking the Additional Commissioner to decide the Revision at the earliest. 9. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from the pleadings on record and more specifically paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 25, where the specific case of the petitioner has been stated that the contesting respondent had filed an application for recall of an order of mutation passed on 12.3.2018 in favour of the petitioner. On 4.6.2018, the application for recall was presented and on the margin of the said application itself without issuing any notice to the petitioner on the application for condonation of delay filed along with the said restoration application, the application was allowed. 10. In view of the facts and the circumstances of this case, the Revisional order dated 14.8.2019 as well as the order dated 4.6.2018 passed by the Tehsildar, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of Tehsildar with a direction that the notices be first issued on the application for condonation of delay and the petitioner be given opportunity of hearing for filing objections. The petitioner from the date of issuance of such notice shall file his objection within one month, whereafter the appropriate orders be passed on the recall application of the contesting respondent. 11. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.