ORDER

1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2021 passed in Case No.0021/Appeal/2020-21 alongwith its proceedings whereby the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Morar, District Gwalior without condoning of delay in filing the said had granted the interim relief as under:

^^çdj.k d¢ vkèkkj ij rglhynkj o`Ùk cM+kxkao d¨ xzke ijeiqj [ksfj;k d¢ losZ Øekad 68 esa can jkLrs d¨ [kqyokus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA t¨ fd èkkjk 131 e-ç- Ø- jk- lafgrk d¢ rgr çdj.k d¢ vfUre fujkdj.k rd ;Fkkor jgsaxsA^^

Assailing the said order and the proceedings thereof to be violative of principle of natural justice and without granting opportunity of hearing, the present petition has been filed.

2. Shri N.K. Gupta – learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri YPS Rathore – Advocate for the petitioners has argued before this Court that the First Appellate Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer had committed error in not deciding the application for condonotion of delay preferred by the present petitioner No.2 alongwith his appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act and had went on to pass an interim order order dated 26.3.2021 whereby the learned Tehsildar of Circle Badagon was directed to open the closed path in Survey No.68 of Village Parampur Kheria till final disposal of the appeal, whereas, it is settled principle of law that without condoning the delay, there is no appeal in existence and no appeal can be heard and the application seeking condonation of delay has to be considered by the Court first.

3. While placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of reported in Popat Bahiru Govardhane & Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Another reported in (2013) 10 SCC 765, it was argued that it is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes and the Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. It was further submitted that the statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same and the legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation, as "inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute and a result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation.

4. It was further submitted that the Appellate Court, without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner proceeded with the matter and granted interim relief to the respondents in the appeal in his absence, thus, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and the matter is required to be remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Morar to consider the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and parties interested.

5. Per contra, counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that no illegality has been committed by both the Court below in passing the impugned order herein, therefore, no interference is warranted in the matter.

6. Heard.

7. Admittedly, it is settled principle of law that without condoning the delay, there is no existence of an appeal and the record which is placed before this Court does not reflect that the First appellate Court had ever condoned the delay in filing the appeal; rather, it appears that straight away the First appellate Court had admitted the appeal and had granted interim relief vide order dated 26.3.2021 whereby the learned Tehsildar of Circle Badagon was directed to open the closed path in Survey No.68 of Village Parampur Kheria till final disposal of the appeal which is per se illegal, as