Letters Patent Appeal No.736 OF 1995 (Against the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 11213 of 1994 on 12th July, 1995) RADHA MOHAN PANDEY & ORS. --------------------------- Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ---------------------------- Respondents --With-- CWJC No.5337 oF 1995 RADHA MOHAN PANDEY & ORS. ------------------------- Appellants Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. ------------------------- Respondents ---- For the Appellants : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi. For the Respondents : Mr. Kamlal Nayan Choubey & Mr. A. Singh. For the State : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, J.C. to GA2. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BARIN GHOSH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M.PRASAD J U D G M E N T Barin Ghosh & C.M. Prasad, J.J. An appeal preferred by the appellant against an order passed under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act having been dismissed only on the ground of limitation, the appellant approached this court by filing a writ petition. The writ petition having been dismissed only on the ground that the appeal of the 2 appellant was time barred and there was no application for condonation of delay, the appellant is before us. It appears that the appellant had purchased the land in question from the land holder. The respondents in the present appeal lost in a proceeding initiated by them under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act against the land holder. Subsequent thereto, the land holder purported to transfer the property in question to the appellant without permission of the Collector. Soon thereafter, the respondents in the writ petition initiated a proceeding under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act without impleading the appellant and succeeded. Being aggrieved by such success, the appellant preferred an appeal and thereby sought to highlight that while obtaining the order under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, the respondents suppressed material facts and in particular their failure to obtain success in the proceedings initiated by them under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, which the appellant could not bring to the notice of the first authority, in view of the fact that, the appellant was not made a party to the said proceeding initiated under Section 48E of the Bihar Tenancy Act. In such circumstances, we think that before dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal was time 3 barred, it would have been appropriate on the part of the appellate authority to decide the matter on merits and for that matter, if necessary, to grant an opportunity to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay. It is expedient to remind the appellate authority that truth must prevail at every cost and an opportunity should be given for revealing the truth. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order under appeal and allow the writ petition by quashing the order of the appellate authority and remit back the matter to the appellate authority to decide the same on merits. The appellant herein shall be treated by the appellate authority to be entitled to represent the interest of the predecessor in interest of the appellant in the land in question. PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA. Dated: 23rd July, 2008 Kundan/N.A.F .R (Barin Ghosh, J.) (C.M. Prasad, J.)