IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4530 of 2002 1. SK.SAMRUL HOQUE @ SAMRUL HAQUE son of Late Ainul Haque 2. Md. Mofizur Rehman 3. Maizur Rehman @ Abdul Moiz sons of Late Sk. Manzoorul Haque 4. Sanjeeda Khatoon daughter of Late Sk. Manzoorul Haque 5. Mostt. Salikia Khatoon widow of late Sk. Manzoorul Haque all resident of village Shikarpur, P.S.- Balia Belon (Kadwa) District- Katihar. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The sub-divisional Officer, Barsoi, District- Katihar 3. The Circle Officer, Balrampur, District- Katihar 4. The Circle Inspector, Balrampur, District- Katihar 5. Jit Raj Manjhi 6. Kandan Manjhi 7. Arun Manjhi all sons of Som Marandi 8. Som Marandi son of Sakal Marandi all resident of village Baldiya Gachhi, P.S.- Balrampur, P.O.- Patnoor, Via Dalkola, District- Katihar. ----------- 9 27.01.2009 Heard the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21.01.2001 passed in appeal vide R.A.No. 4 of 2001-02 by the respondent no.2, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed in proceeding under section 48(d) of the Bihar Tenancy Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation and the application filed by the petitioner for condoning the delay in filing the appeal has been rejected without due application of mind as while rejecting the application the respondent no. 2 has merely said that the reasons 2 are not sufficient. As such it is submitted that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-8 deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that on perusal of the order contained in Annexure-8, it would appear that the Appellate Court has considered the merits of the matter as well as the issue that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation, and as such, it can not be said that the appeal was dismissed for having filed beyond the period of limitation only. Upon considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 06.06.1998 having filed on 11.07.2001 was dismissed as the same was filed beyond the period of limitation. It further appears on perusal of the said order that the petitioner had filed an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and the same was rejected observing that the grounds given for condoning the delay was insufficient, and as such, delay can not be condoned. The impugned order rejecting the application for condoning the delay does not mention any reason for arriving at the conclusion that the ground for condoning the delay was not sufficient. It is expected 3 that while rejecting the application the authority ought to have discussed the grounds on account of which the appellant was prevented from filing the appeal within time. In view of the above, the order dismissing the appeal for being barred by limitation can not be sustained in law. Besides the above, it also appears that the Appellate Court while rejecting the appeal had touched certain aspects on the merits of the matter, however, no reason has been assigned for arriving at the finding with regard to possession of the parties and the relevant materials in support thereof. In the above circumstances, the impugned order dated 22.01.2001 (Annexure-8) is, hereby, quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for passing a reasoned order afresh in accordance with law in respect of all the matters including the question of limitation. The respondent no.2 shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)