JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard Shri Prabhat Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri A.S. Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main reliefs:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dated 18.09.2001 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow in Revision No. 114/ 1993-94 which annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 11.08.2022 passed in Review No. 104/ 2005-06 passed by Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow which is annexed as Annexure No. 2 to this writ petition.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 16.06.1994 passed in Appeal No. 9/ 44 passed by Assistant Record Officer, Faizabad which is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition.”

3. In the present case, the legal question involved is as to whether any application/ suit/ case etc. is filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act without filing any application for condonation of delay, such application etc. may be admitted and decided without adverting to the factum of delay.

4. The law is very clear that if any period is prescribed to file any application etc., the same should have been filed within time prescribed. If in any case such application etc. is filed beyond the period so prescribed, such application etc. should be filed along with an application for condonation of delay. The court concerned should first advert to application for condonation of delay and if the court satisfies that the delay is liable to be condoned, the delay is condoned and the matter is heard on merits but if the court finds that the delay is not liable to be condoned, such application may be rejected at the very beginning and in that case the matter is not heard on merits. The law is also very clear that if any application etc. is filed without filing a separate application for condonation of delay but the reason of delay is indicated in such application and the court concerned hears such application and decides the same adverting to the factum of delay and reasons thereof, that order may not be treated as nullity in the eyes of law, if the issue in question is so serious which requires instant intervention of the court. It is not always needed to file a formal application of condonation of delay and if the delay has been explained properly in an application etc. and the court concerned has dealt with such reasons and grounds of delay, the order in question would not be treated as nullity in the eyes of law. But in any case the factum of delay and the reasons and grounds so taken by the applicant, the same must have been dealt with by the authority concerned while passing an order in a case which has been filed after a period so prescribed under the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sesh Nath Singh and Another vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another, 2021 SC 177, in Para 62, 63, 64 and 102 has observed as under:

“62. It is true that a valuable right may accrue to the other party by the law of limitation, which should not lightly be defeated by condoning delay in a routine manner. At the same time, when stakes are high, the explanation should not be rejected by taking a pedantic and hyper technical view of the matter, causing thereby irreparable loss and injury to the party against whom the lis terminates. The courts are required to strike a balance between the legitimate rights and interests of the respective parties.

63. Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not speak of any application. The Section enables the Court to admit an application or appeal if the applicant or the appellant, as the case may be, satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not ma