IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8467 of 2008 RAJNITI KUNWAR son of Late Damodar Kunwar of Village Mohmmadinagar P.S.Rosera District Samastipur. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Collector of Samastipur. 2.The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Rosera,Dist.Samastipur 3.The Circle Officer of Rosera Block at Rosera,Dist.Samastipur. ----------- 2 23.4.2009. This application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order passed by Collector, Samastipur in Mutation case no.386 of 1998. By the impugned order, Collector, Samastipur has dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner on the point of limitation as the substitution petition was filed after five years delay. Counsel for the petitioner submits that original mutation case was filed by one Moti Kumari in Case no.298 of 1986- 87. Against the order passed in favour of Moti Kumari in Mutation case no.298 of 1986-87 one Anup Lal Purve preferred appeal before the D.C.L.R. Rosera vide Appeal no.7 of 1988-89. Appeal was allowed by the D.C.L.R. Against the order passed by the D.C.L.R. revision was filed by Damodar Kumar son of Moti Kumari as she died. Damodar Kumar died during the pendency of revision application. Damodar Kumar is the father of petitioner, as such he was substituted in place of Damodar Kumar. After his substitution the petitioner came to know that the opposite party Anup Lal purve is also dead, then he filed substitution petition along with the petition for condoning the delay mentioning the date of death of opposite party 2 Anup Lal Purve. The Collector rejected the limitation petition, substitution petition as well as the revision application for the reasons that the date of death was not mentioned in substitution petition in order to mislead the court regarding the period of limitation. It is submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that it is not correct and an error of record. Substitution petitions are filed for substituting the legal heirs of contesting parties so that matters can be decided on merit. Unless there is a very long and unexplained delay, limitation petition should be allowed by condoning the delay. Object of the judicial as well as quasi-judicial authorities is to do justice and decide cases on its merit in accordance with law. Dismissing the cases on technical ground without deciding on merit, cannot be treated as legal orders as the issue which needs to be decided remains undecided. Accordingly the order dated 12.3.2008 passed by the Collector, Samastipur in Revision case no. 386 of 1998 is quashed. This application is allowed. The case is remanded to the Collector, Samastipur for deciding it on merit, by condoning the delay and allowing substitution petition. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)