(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 7044 of 2008 Anil s/o. Sidram Shinde, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Yewati, Taluka : Tuljapur, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Shivaji s/o. Babu Lavte, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Yewati, Taluka : Tuljapur, District : Osmanabad. 2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents. .................. Mr. S.B. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. P.M. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.2. .................. (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 1ST JULY 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 8th August 2008, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Osmanabad, in Appeal No. 2007/ROR/A-108, vide which the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has condoned the delay of 20 years in filing an appeal challenging the mutation entry executed in favour of the petitioners in the year 1985. 3. Mr. S.B. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has grossly erred in condoning the delay by finding that there are merits in the matter. He submits that though the delay is of 22 years, it has been incorrectly mentioned as 20 years and, as such, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has grossly erred in allowing the application. 4. Mr. N.P. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, submits that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has allowed the application for condonation of delay, taking into consideration the substantial justice. He submits that instead of foreclosing doors of justice to a litigant on technical grounds, it is appropriate that their rights should be adjudicated on its own merits and, as such, no interference is warranted. (3) 5. It is settled law, that at the stage of condonation of delay, the authority can go only into the question, as to whether a party has made out "sufficient cause" for condoning the delay, or not. At the stage of condonation of delay, the authority is not permitted to go into the merits of the matter. No doubt, even an inordinate delay, like in the present case, of 20 - 22 years, can be condoned. However, before exercising the jurisdiction of condonation of delay, the authority is required to apply its mind to the facts of the case and come to subjective satisfaction, whether the party has made out "sufficient cause", or not, for exercising discretion in favour of condonation of delay. 6. In the present case, leave aside the authority coming to a finding that the appellant (respondent herein) had made out "sufficient cause", there is not even a reference to the cause for delay in the impugned order. I find, that the respondent no.2 has grossly erred in allowing the application for condonation of delay by taking into consideration the merits of the matter, without there being any whisper regarding the question as to whether the respondent no.1 has made out a case for condonation of delay, or not. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "C". The matter is remanded to the respondent no.2 for considering the application filed by the respondent no.1 for condonation of delay on its own merits, in accordance with law, and specifically in the light of the observations made herein above. (4) In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp7044