ORDER M.P. Mehrotra, J. -This petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 1960. 2. The facts, in brief, are these: The petitioner was issued notice under S. 10 (2) and he filed objections. They were decided by the Prescribed Authority by his order dated 30-3-1976. It seems that earlier the petitioner had moved an amendment application, which the Prescribed Authority rejected on 9-2-1976. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision to the District Judge, Pilibhit, the same was dismissed on 23-12-1976. Thereafter the petitioner claimed that he came to know about the order dated 30-3-1976 as late as on 10-2-1977. Thereafter the petitioner moved for setting aside the order dated 30-3-1976 on 17-2-1977. This prayer was rejected on 21-3-1977 for non-prosecution. 3. An appeal against the order dated 30-3-1976 was filed in April, 1977 and the memorandum of appeal was accompanied with an application under S. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The appeal itself was filed on 7-4-1977 and the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act was moved on 9-4-1977. The application was rejected by the Appellate Court by its order dated 28-9 1977, a true copy whereof is Annexure No. 2 to the petition. 4. Now the petitioner has come in the instant petition and in support of it have heard Sri S. K. Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. It should be seen that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Manindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee, ( AIR 1964 SC 1336 ) it is now settled that sufficiency of cause under S. 5 of the Limitation Act is a matter which rests in the domain of the Courts below and the same does not raise any question of jurisdiction. Therefore, the finding of the Appellate Court that the cause shown was not sufficient under S. 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be interfered with within the limited scope of a writ petition. Learned counsel, however, contended that some corrections had been effected in the aforesaid order dated 30-3-1976 subsequently and in view of the provisions contained in S. 13-A, the appeal should have been held to be within time. Learned counsel, however, contended that some corrections had been effected in the aforesaid order dated 30-3-1976 subsequently and in view of the provisions contained in S. 13-A, the appeal should have been held to be within time. It should be seen that no copy of the memorandum of appeal has been placed before me even though time had been obtained for the same as far back as on 24th Oct., 1979. In my view S. 13-A will not enable the petitioner to claim a right to contest the original order on its merits when no regular appeal was filed against the same under S. 13 of the Act. In the proceedings under S. 13-A the only scope will be limited to the mistake which is corrected. In this view of the matter, it is not clear, in the absence of the copy of the memorandum of appeal, whether any grievance was being made about the merits of the original order or in respect of some correction which had been done. It was a purely clerical error which was corrected under Section 13-A There is no Plot No. 44 in village Kathar Ghora, owned by the petitioner His Plot No. 44 was situated in village Mahoba. Therefore, instead of village Kathar Ghora the village Mahoba was substituted. In my view, the petitioner could have no grievance in such a situation. There was no increase in the surplus land and only the place of location of the surplus land was corrected. 5. This petition fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.