Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1814 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6533 of 2024 Petitioner :- Raju Khan And 3 Others Respondent :- Shakeel Ahmad And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashwat Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Durgesh Kumar Pathak AND Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 66 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raju Khan And 3 Others Respondent :- Shakeel Ahmad And 13 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashwat Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Durgesh Kumar Pathak Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Since both the petitions arise out of the same cause of action, they are being decided together by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. By means of the impugned order dated 08.11.2024, the revisional Court remanded the matter on the interpretation of Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC and on the ground that the applicant who had filed an application for condonation of delay was not heard. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revisional order wrongly interprets the mandate of Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC. 5. Considering the import of the order dated 08.11.2024 whereby the matter was remanded for consideration of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere in exercise of the said power. 6. However, it is clarified that the observations made in the order dated 08.11.2024 in respect of mandate of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC will not bind the Court which shall decide the Section 5 application and Order 9 Rule 13 CPC application on its own merit and in accordance with law with all expedition, preferably within a period of six months. 7. Present petitions stand disposed off in above terms. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench