JUDGMENT H. S. Dubey, I.A.S.—This is a petition for revision of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Nahan, exercising the powers of the Collector, recommended "by the learned Commissioner, vide his orders dated 29-2-1976 under the provisions of section 17 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953. 2. The facts of this case, in brief, are that Shri Shamsber Singh and others, the present respondents applied for the partition of Shamlat land, situate in Village Trilokpur, measuring 7742-2 bighas to the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Nahan on 15-7-1971. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade- sanctioned the partition by his order dated 27-8-1974. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, the present petitioner and others filed an appeal before the Collector, Nahan Sub-Division on 5-2-1975. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector in his order dated 15-2-1975 on the ground of limitation. This order of dismissal was further agitated by the petitioner and others before the learned Commissioner in revision, who after hearing the parties has recommended to this Court that the impugned order of Collector being illegal and had in law be set aside and that he may be directed to hear the appeal on merits as it was filed in time before him. It is in this background that the case has come up before me for my orders. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have considered the records of the case carefully. 4. There is only one point for consideration before me and that is with regard to limitation in filing the appeal before the Collector. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, Miss Kamlesh Sharma, contended that after the partition was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nahan on 27-8-74, her client, Shri Atma Ram, applied for copies of five documents viz. copy of the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade dated 27-8-74, mode of partition, Naksha Jeem, Naksha Alf and Tatimas attached with the partition case on 10-9-1974. This application was duly entered in the relevant register of the copying Agency on the same day at Sr. No. 755. She further stated that copies were not supplied to her client for a considerable time. This application was duly entered in the relevant register of the copying Agency on the same day at Sr. No. 755. She further stated that copies were not supplied to her client for a considerable time. The entries with regard to copies except the copy of Naksha Jeem, it was alleged, were fraudlently scored out by the Official of the Copying Agency and attestation to the cuttings was obtained from the petitioner under his signatures, who being a gullible and illiterate person, knowing nothing more than to sign his name apparently was taken in by the interested advice of the official. He was further advised by the same agency to give a fresh application for the copy of the order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, dated 27-8-74. Not knowing the implication, he applied on 4-1-75 and was provided with a copy on 6-1-74. Even after this, the copy of the Naksha Jeem asked for in the previous application was not supplied till 24-1-1975. This was an important document as it contained the particulars regarding the parties to be impleaded. 6. By giving the above details the learned counsel tried to prove that the first application given by the petitioner on 10-9-1974 for the supply of copies of various documents cad to be taken into account for the purpose of computing the period of limitation and not the second application which was given on 4-1-70 under the advice of the Copying Agency." She further alleged that in case the copy of the order of Assistant Collector 1st Grade could not be supplied on the application made by the petitioner on 10-9-74, it was incumbent upon the officials of the Copying Agency to have returned the same to the petitioner immediately for doing the needful She asserted that the inaction of the Copying Agency could not be allowed to operate against the petitioner and as such the period spent in obtaining the copies right from 10-9-74 when the first application was made till 24-1-75 when the copy of Naksha Jeem was made available, should be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. In support of her case, she cited the case of Gurdial Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, RLR \911 p. 553. In support of her case, she cited the case of Gurdial Singh and another v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, RLR \911 p. 553. It was also argued by her that the order of the Collector in dismissing the appeal without summoning and hearing all the respondents was irregular and illegal. It was stated that in view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the petitioner could not be penalised for delay in obtaining the copies, the responsibility for which, it was alleged, squarely lay with Copying Agency. Lastly, it was argued that the appeal before the Collector was within time if the time involved in obtaining the copies under section 12 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act was taken out of account. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the above contentions and asserted that the first application given by the petitioner for copies on 10-9-74 was only in respect of Naksha Jeem as the entries regarding other items were scored out by him on his own under his signature. Thus, there was nothing wrong or irregular on the part of the Copying Agency in not supplying the copy of the order dated 27-8-74, he urged. He further stated that the period from 10-9-74 to 24-1-75 could not be excluded for the purpose of limitation as the second application was made by him for the order of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade on 4-1-/5 when the limitation had already expired. He, therefore, argued that the appeal was barred by limitation before the Collector particularly when there was no application for condonation of delay as required under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. He maintained that the dismissal of the appeal by the Collector was in accordance with the provisions of the law. In support of his contention, he cited the case of State of H. P. v. Lt. Vijay Singh, AIR 1977 HP p. 13 and Moinuddin and others v. Ajudhya Sahu and others, AIR 1957 Patna p. 185. 8. I have considered the case in the light of the above arguments. In support of his contention, he cited the case of State of H. P. v. Lt. Vijay Singh, AIR 1977 HP p. 13 and Moinuddin and others v. Ajudhya Sahu and others, AIR 1957 Patna p. 185. 8. I have considered the case in the light of the above arguments. In case Gurdial Singh and others v. Financial Commissioner, Punjab, (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been held "that there is a Rule which says that if the Copying Department was of the view that some more particulars were required for trading the file, it would return the application to the applicant, to supply more particulars. Where this step was not taken by the Department, it would be presumed that the Copying Department was not thinking that the applicant was guilty of not supplying full particulars that were needed for giving the certified copy applied for. If, subsequently, at the intance of the Department, the applicant made another application for the same purpose, the copy supplied should be treated to have supplied under the previous application. The applicant should not suffer for the negligence of the Copying Department." In case State of H. P. v. Lt. Vijay Singh, (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the respondents, it has been held that "whatever rights have been decided or decreed in favour of the respondent cannot easily be displaced by any negligence or inaction on the part of the appellant and the period of limitation prescribed for appeal shall not easily be extended. Rather the Court will demand explanation for day to days delay and the party availing of the provision under section 5 has to explain this delay in a reasonable manner. Even in a case where sufficient cause is made out under section 5, the discretion is still left to the Court to extend or not the period of limitation. It is in that sphere that considerations of good faith and due diligence arise and a thorough enquiry will have to be made as to the conduct of the appellant." Incase Moinuddin and others v. Ajudhya Sahu, (supra;, it has been held "that when an appeal is not accompanied by necessary copies of the judgments, the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar under Rule 7 of the Patna High Court Rules, cannot grant time for production of the same beyond the period of limitation. It is only when an application under section 5, Limitation Act, is filed that the question of condoning the delay can be considered by the Bench." 9. I have seen the original application of the petitioner which was received in the Copying Agency on lO-y-74 and entered at serial No. 755. In this application, the petitioner had applied for the copies of five documents including a copy of the order of Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, dated 27-8-74. The Examination of this application reveals that except for the entry of Naksha Jeern all other entries are scored out and signature of Shri Atma Ram has been taken thereon. It appears rather strange that the petitioner had himself scored out the entries particularly the one regarding copy of the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade without which no appeal could be filed. A man of ordinary produce is not expected to-do anything which may harm his own interests. From the perusal of the signatures taken on the application, it is amply clear that the petitioner is an illiterate person knowing little more than to sign his name. Unsupported as he was by any counsel or knowledgeable person, he could not have understood the real niceties of law. I cannot bring myself to believe that if he had known the implications of his action, he would have acted in a manner which would further the very purpose of asking for copies. Obviously, this has been done by some official of the Copying Agency who has taken advantage of the facelessness and the anonymity of bureaucracy and inveigled the petitioner into doing something which would hurt him vitally. The conduct of the copying agency does not appear to be free from suspicion and above board In case, the copies could not be supplied by the Copying Agency for want of any particulars, the proper course would have been to return the application to the petitioner for getting any information relating thereto. This was not done. In this particular case, there was nothing by way of particulars which needed to be furnished for tracing the file and none was asked for either on the first application or the next. This was not done. In this particular case, there was nothing by way of particulars which needed to be furnished for tracing the file and none was asked for either on the first application or the next. The fact that the petitioner was asked verbally to apply separately - for a copy of the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, dated 27-8-74 leaves no room for doubt that even if it was the petitioner who had scared out the entries in the original application, it was certainly not on his own. Here is a brazen and a blatant example, of how an ordinary minion of the law can throw a spanner in the entire judicial process. It is unfortunate that the lower fuctioneries of judicial administration unabshedly resort to such mischieveous subterfuges and thereby bring the whole machinary to dis-repute and reduce legal processes to a mockery. It is to be noted further that copy of Naksa Jeeth which was asked for and not scored out in the first application was not supplied to the petitioner till 24-1-75. Where was the cause for such an inordinate delay? If this period is taken out of account for the purpose of limitation, he could still be in time to file the appeal. In the circumstances, 1 agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fault for delay in the supply of copies and asking the petitioner to apply for a copy of the order of the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade afresh does not lay upon the petitioner. The responsibility is directly that of the Copying Agency. 10. I fully agree with the citation given by the learned counsel for the respondent that the period of limitation prescribed for appeal should not be extended easily and explanation for day todays delay must be explained in reasonable manner before the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. But in this case, there are peculiar circumstances as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and as such the authority given by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 11. But in this case, there are peculiar circumstances as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and as such the authority given by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 11. In view of the above, I accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the Collector, Nahan dated 15-2-1975 and direct him to hear the appeal on merits in accordance with the law which was filed before him within time after excluding the period from 10-9-74 when the first application was given for copies till 24-1-75, when the copy of Naksha Jeem embodying the particulars of necessary parties to be impleaded was supplied to the petitioner. 12. Orders to be communicated. Revision petition accepted.