IMPORTANT POINT
If technical and substantial justice are pitted together, the way should be given to the substantial justice and there is no need to explain day to day delay in filing application for condonation of delay.

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri. Mohd. Adil Khan holding brief of Sri. Mohd. Arif Khan, Senior Advocate. Learned counsel for the revisionist, Km. Rafat Farooqui holding brief of Sri. Z. Zilani, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

2. Facts of the present case are to the effect that initially in suit No. 281 of 1982, a certificate of registration dated 01.02.1993 as the entire property left by the one Sri Monday Khan was obtained which indicated that the entire property was registered as Waqf property and respondent No. 4 was appointed as Mutawalli.

3. As per the version of the revisionist, thereafter he came to know the above said fact on 17.09.1983 and moved an application for reference under Section 33 (2) and Section 29 (8) read with Section 71 of U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 on 17.12.1983 along with an application supported with an affidavit under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

4. Application under Section 5 of the limitation Act was rejected by the court below vide order dated 27.03.1984 on the ground that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable under the proceedings of U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, revisionist had approach this court by filing a Revision No 59 of 1984 allowed by order dated 19.03.1986 with the direction that under the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, Limitation Act will apply, accordingly it was directed to decide the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

6. In view of the above said facts after remanded the matter in question came for consideration before the court below registered as Miscellaneous Suit No. 64 of 1983 (Dr. Habib Ahmad Khan v. U.P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and others.

7. By order dated 04.09.1987, Civil Judge, Raebareily dismissed the application of the revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that there was no sufficient and good explanation and reason given by the revisionist for condonation of delay as well as he had failed to explain the day to day delay in the matter in question. Accordingly court below came to the conclusion that the reference made by the revisionist was beyond to the statutory period of 90 days provided under the Act and passed the impugned order.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.09.1987 passed by the Civil judge, Raebareily the present revision has been filed under Section 75 of the U.P. Muslim Waqf, 1960.

9. Learned counsel for the revisionist while assailing impugned order under challenge passed by the Civil judge, Raebareily submits that the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this court that while deciding the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, liberal consideration should be given in order to advance the substantial justice.

10. He further submits that now as per the settled proposition of law, there is no necessity whatsoever to explain day to day delay in moving the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, hence, the order dated 04.09.1987 passed by the Civil Judge, Rabareily is illegal liable to be set-aside.

11. Km. Rafat Farqui holding brief of Sri. Zilani, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the order passed by the court below is perfectly valid and needs no interference as the revisionist failed to give sufficient reasons for condoning the delay while filing the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

13. So far as the factual matrix of the present case, it is not disputed that the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act is applicable in the matter in question.

14. Further, in the present case, the revisionist moved an application under Section 33 (2) and Section 29 (8) read with Section 71 of U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 alongwith an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

15. Needless to mention here that in respect to the matter relating to condonation of