Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. Heard Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Advocate, for petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents, and, perused the record.

2. Objections were filed by petitioner after expiry of period of limitation and application seeking condonation of delay has been rejected by all three Revenue Courts below. Hence, this writ petition.

3. It is contended that petitioner was pursuing another matter and therefore could not file objection within time, but it is not stated anywhere that while pursuing the matter elsewhere, why petitioner could not file objection within the period of limitation, particularly when it is not his case that thereat for all 24 hours of entire working days, every day he was busy in pursuing the matter. It is also not their that there was lack of knowledge to petitioner.

4. Since, all the three Courts below have recorded finding of fact that explanation furnished by petitioner is not satisfactory, I do not find it a fit case warranting interference in exercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226.

5. At this stage, it may be mentioned that all the orders impugned in this writ petition have been passed by Revenue Courts and he