- (1.) HIMANSHU Kumar, J. This second appeal has been preferred against the order and decree dated 29-3-2005 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in an appeal filed against the order and decree dated 9-6- 2003 passed by the SDO, Sadar, Firozabad in a suit filed under Section 49 of U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939.
(2.) IT appears that the SDO Sadar Firozabad by his order dated 9-6-2003 confirmed the lots prepared by the Lkehpal on 18-2-1994 and rejected the applications moved by the appellant, Sri Bhagwan. Against this very order an appeal was preferred in the Court of Additional Commissioner which has been dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 29-3-2005 holding it to be time barred. Feeling aggrieved by these orders the present second appeal has been preferred before the Board of Revenue, Allabahad. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on file. Having gone through the file I find that the main ground for the second appeal is that the lower Appellate Court has taken too harsh a view on limitation and dismissed the first appeal by its order dated 29-3-2005 as being barred by time. In support of his contentions he has cited the case laws reported in 2001 (2) AWC 974, AIR 1993 All 198 and 2004 (1) AWC 48. Thus the substantial question of law inherent in this second appeal is whether the lower Appellate Court has ruled correctly on the issue of condonation of delay?
(3.) ON the issue of limitation the case law is well laid down upto Hon'ble Apex Court that too technical a view should not be taken in the matters of condonation of delay and that the limitation starts from date of knowledge and not from the date of order and decree. It is noteworthy that against the order dated 9-6-2003 an appeal was presented on 21-7-2003. In this context I am inclined to be of the view that it would be in the interest of justice to remand the case to the Additional Commissioner with the directions to hear both the parties afresh on the issue of condonation of delay and pass a suitable order as per law since the case laws referred to above are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. On the basis of aforesaid analysis the second appeal having force and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 29-3-2005 is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Court of Additional Commissioner concerned to decide the issue of delay condonation afresh after hearing both the parties and to pass a suitable order as per law. Appeal allowed. .;