JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behal of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by the office of the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Sri Atharva Arya and Sri Avinash Tiwari, learned counsel have put in appearance on caveat on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit after serving a copy on the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the same is taken on record. 3. Under challenge is the order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Lucknow whereby it has recalled the ex-parte order granting an interim order dated 22.04.2022 earlier passed by him fixing 10.06.2022 for hearing of the appeal. 4. In order to put the matter in perspective, the facts as emerging from the record is that predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners had executed a power of attorney in favour of private respondent no. 3 for the purposes of executing a sale deed in favour of Sri Vivek Sahai in whose favour the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioners had executed an agreement to sell dated 26.08.1993. The said power of attorneys have been brought on record along with the supplementary affidavit filed today. 5. The record further indicates that the said power of attorney holder i.e. private respondent no. 3 in the year 1994 executed a sale deeds in favour of the private respondent no. 2. The village in question where the property is situate came under consolidation operations and an order dated 22.05.1995 came to be passed in exercise of the powers under Section 12 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. 6. It is being aggrieved against the ex-parte order dated 22.05.1995 that the petitioners preferred an appeal before the SOC as late as in the month of April, 2022. The said appeal was accompanied by an application seeking interim relief as well as seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 7. It is on the said appeal that the SOC concerned by means of order dated 22.04.2022 passed an interim order which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4. The said appeal was accompanied by an application seeking interim relief as well as seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 7. It is on the said appeal that the SOC concerned by means of order dated 22.04.2022 passed an interim order which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 4. The SOC while passing the said order observed that the order dated 22.05.2022 appears to be suspicious and in order to protect the property in question, it directed the parties to maintain status-quo and not to alienate the same at the same time issued notices to the respondents in the appeal. 8. The private respondents no. 2 herein who was the respondent in the appeal appeared before the SOC and on 27.05.2022 moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 22.04.2022 primarily on the ground that since the appeal had been preferred with much delay, it was not open for the SOC to have passed the interim order even without noticing the respondents and condoning the delay. The SOC realizing the same by means of order dated 27.05.2022 recalled the order dated 22.04.2022 and the present petitioners being aggrieved have assailed the same before this Court. 9. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not open for the SOC to have recalled the order especially at the behest of the private respondents without hearing the petitioners. 10. It is urged that once an order had been passed, the least requirement was that the petitioners ought to have been granted time to respond to the application preferred by the private respondents seeking vacation of the stay order dated 24.02.2022 and only after affording an opportunity of hearing, the orders could have been passed but the manner in which the order dated 24.02.2022 has been recalled is not in sound exercise of discretion or jurisdiction exercised by the respondent no. 1. 11. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the delay in filing the appeal had been condoned, the answer to which was in the negative. 12. The issue before this Court at this stage is whether the order which has been recalled by the SOC is appropriate or the said order could have been passed only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 13. 12. The issue before this Court at this stage is whether the order which has been recalled by the SOC is appropriate or the said order could have been passed only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 13. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that in so far as the legal proposition is concerned, once an appeal has been preferred along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Authority does not get the jurisdiction to pass any orders on the merits of the controversy without condoning the delay. 14. This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of this Court in the case of Ram Prakash Vs. Director of Consolidation and Others reported in 2022 SCC Online (Alld.) 107. 15. Having noticed the aforesaid dictum, above, there can be no doubt that initial order dated 22.04.2022 was not within the jurisdiction of the SOC to have been passed especially in light of the Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 16. Having said that, once the matter was brought to the notice of the SOC by the private respondents and taking note of the same, the SOC has recalled the order, this Court finds that there is no error which has been committed by the respondent no. 2, inasmuch as, an order which was without jurisdiction and if at all passed by the authority concerned in ignorance of law could have been recalled once having been put to his notice. 17. In this view of the matter, since the interim order has been recalled, this Court finds that there is no error or scope to interfere in the order dated 27.05.2022 in writ jurisdiction at this stage. 18. Be that as it may, since the appeal is already pending before the respondent no. 1 fixed for 10.06.2022, it shall be open for the parties to appear before the SOC on the next date of listing and in the meantime, file their objections, both on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the merits of the appeal. The SOC is directed to consider and decide the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act first and if found successful shall thereafter proceed to decide the appeal on merits. The SOC is directed to consider and decide the Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act first and if found successful shall thereafter proceed to decide the appeal on merits. The parties shall be free to raise all their pleas including of maintainability if any before the SOC who shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible preferrably within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Authority concerned. 19. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the observations is only in context with the limited issues of interim order and its validity which is before this Court. 20. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.