JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Jamuna Narain Verma is directed against an order passed by the District Judge, Lucknow dated 18-5-1978, rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in presenting the appeal u/s (sic) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 2. The Prescribed Authority, by its order dated 15-4-1977 declared 285 sq. meters land belonging to the Petitioner as surplus. The Appellant presented an appeal against the order dated 15-4-1977 before the District Judge, Lucknow on 2-8-1977 and made an application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act praying that the delay in presenting the appeal should be condoned. This application, was, in due course rejected by the District Judge by his order dated 18-5-1978. The application u/s 5 of the Indian Limitation Act filed by the Petitioner was accompanied by (sic) sworn on personal knowledge (sic) which it was mentioned (sic) Petitioner was an old (sic) has fallen ill and was (sic) from 17-4-1977 to 21-8-1977 as he was suffering from typhoid fever and dysentery. He claimed that he remained under the treatment of Dr. K.K. Kaiser, Subhash Nagar, Bareilly. He, therefore, attributed his inability to file the appeal within time due to illness. 3. On behalf of the State no affidavit was filed controverting the factual allegations made in the affidavit filed by the Petitioner. The District Judge observed that notice of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 15-6-1977 was given to the Appellant on 24-5-1977, He should therefore, have filed the appeal by 23-6-1977 or at the latest on 3-7-1977, when the courts reopened after vacation. He mentioned these facts not for consideration as to whether there was any reason to condone the delay in filing the appeal but for showing that the appeal was actually belated to the extent of one month and 19 days. The District Judge rejected the explanation for not filing the appeal within time as countenanced in the affidavit filed in support of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act by making the following observations: The affidavit about being bed ridden from 17 to 21/8 of typhoid and dysentery is wholly unconvincing. No particulars are given nor why the counsel could not be contacted through family members. 4. No particulars are given nor why the counsel could not be contacted through family members. 4. Learned District Judge has not given any reason for considering the affidavit filed by the Petitioner about his illness as unconvincing. In the case of Juggi Lal Kamla Pat v. Ram Janki Gupta 1962 AWR 331 , a Division Bench of this Court has observed thus: Where the court had before it a duly sworn affidavit of the pairokar of the Plaintiff in support of his application under Order 9 Rule 9 for restoration of his suit dismissed for default of appearance and there was no counter-affidavit in traverse of the allegations contained in that affidavit it was not open to the court to disbelieve the allegations of the Plaintiff in the affidavit. 5. In the instant case, there is, nothing to show that the Respondent at any stage, traversed the allegations of the affidavit. There was nothing in the affidavit which went to show that the allegation made therein was false in the face of it. In these circumstances, the District Judge was not justified in rejecting the affidavit filed in support of the application u/s 5 of the Act without assigning any reason for it and merely by stating that the affidavit was unconvincing. In my opinion, the order passed by the District Judge discloses no reason for rejecting averments made in affidavit filed u/s 5 of the Act. 6. In this view of the matter, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 18-5-1977 is set aside. As the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act have remained uncontroverted, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. The case will now go back to the District Judge for disposing off the appeal filed by the Petitioner on merits. In the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.