JUDGMENT M.P. Mehrotra, J. - This petition arises out 'of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act. 2. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail because the controversy is a short one. In the ceiling proceedings, an appeal was filed but the same was dismissed in default on 7-4-1979. Thereafter, an application for restoration was made and the same was allowed on 13-5-1980 and a conditional order was passed whereby a direction was given that the earlier order dismissing the appeal in default would stand set aside in case a sum of Rs. 50/- was paid within 15 days from the date of the said order. The allegation of the petitioner is that the said application for restoration had been actually heard earlier in April, 1980 and the order had been reserved. It is further his allegation that his counsel was not aware of the said order before 16-7-1980 and when on the said date, the counsel came to know of the said order, a letter was sent by the said counsel to the petitioner and after receiving the said letter, the petitioner turned up and moved the appellate court on 24-7- 1980 for extension of time for paying the costs. A true copy of the said application dated 24-7-1980 is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The said application was, however, rejected by the appellate court by its order dated 26-7-1980, a true copy whereof is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. A certified copy of the said order is also on the record. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has now come up in the instant writ petition and in support thereof, I have heard Sri A. D. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. In opposition, the learned Standing Counsel has made his submissions. 4. Sri Prabhakar contended that the appellate court was under a misconception of law in thinking that it had no jurisdiction to extend the time in a case where a conditional order had been passed. He has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Govardhan Singh v. Barsati, ( AIR 1972 All 246 ) : (1972 All L J 169). In my view, this contention is correct. He has placed reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Govardhan Singh v. Barsati, ( AIR 1972 All 246 ) : (1972 All L J 169). In my view, this contention is correct. The appellate court in the impugned order has said : "the order was self-contained and was conditional, since the condition was not fulfilled the application for restoration stood dismissed. At this stage. therefore, it is not possible to modify the order. The application is accordingly rejected." It was open to the appellate court to extend the time for the payment of the costs even though the period of 15 days had earlier elapsed. It was also open to the said court not to extend the time if it felt that the reason given by the petitioner was not adequate or sufficient. The Court, however, was bound to consider the allegation which had been made by the petitioner in his application dated 24-7-80 and only thereafter, an order should have been passed. This was not done. 5. Accordingly, I allow this petition and quash the impugned order dated 26-7-1980 (Annexure 8). The case is sent back to the appellate court for a fresh decision on the application dated 24-7-1980. It will, of course, be for the said court to decide the controversy but I wish to emphasise that the law of this country favours an adjudication on merits after hearing both the parties. The attention of the court is drawn to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal Kotah, (AIR 1955 S C 425). In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.