JUDGMENT B.K. Misra, Chairman. - This is a reference from the learned Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, in a mutation case relating to Khata No. 167 village Rithora, Pargana and District Bareilly. 2. One Brij Lal, had died and Midhai Lal, the revisionist before the Board, had claimed to be the heir as the deceased was his adopted son. This was challenged by Smt. Ramwati claiming to be the widow of the deceased. During the course of the proceedings, as application was filed by the parties through their counsel in which they admitted that Smt. Ramwati, objector, was the widow of Brij Lal deceased. Accordingly, the learned Tahsildar passed an order in, terms of this agreement between the parties on November 7, 1978. Thereafter, Midhai Lal went in appeal before the S.D.O. on January 1, 1979 along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned S.D.O. has narrated the facts of the case in his order and has made the observation that the application signed by both the parties dated October 28, 1978 bears thumb impressions of both the paries verified by their counsel. Thereafter, he observed that the appeal was time-barred as the delay had not been explained to his satisfaction inasmuch as there was no medical certificate to support Midhai Lal's contention that he was ill, and on this basis he dismissed the appeal. The learned Additional Commissioner in his reference has held that there was no proper service on the L.M.C and as such the proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of para A-377 of Chapter XXXVII of the Revenue Court Manual. 3. I have heard the counsel for the parties on all the points. The learned counsel for the revisionist started by attacking the agreement/compromise filed before the Tahsildar dated October 28, 1978 in which the relationship of Smt. Ramwati to the deceased Brij Lal was admitted by the parties. He contended that the relationship was not admitted to the Revisionist. Ho also argued that the compromise was not read out to the parties in court. This argument does not have any merit in it inasmuch as he is not in a position to dispute that the application was presented and thumb-impressions were identified by the counsel of the parties. He contended that the relationship was not admitted to the Revisionist. Ho also argued that the compromise was not read out to the parties in court. This argument does not have any merit in it inasmuch as he is not in a position to dispute that the application was presented and thumb-impressions were identified by the counsel of the parties. Secondly, this is a question of the fact which cannot be reopened at this stage where no material irregularity is being proved. It is a finding of fact which has not been disturbed by any of the court's below. 4. I shall now take up the argument of the learned counsel about the dismissal of the appeal by the S.D.O. as time-barred. The learned counsel argued that the finding about compromise in the judgment of the learned S.D.O. shows that it is a finding on merits also. Reading the paras 2 and 3 of the order of the learned S.D.O. I find that the facts have been narrated and it has been noticed that the application moved jointly by the parties on October 28, 1978 before the Tahsildar is an admission of Smt. Ramwati's relationship with the deceased, and that the Tahsildar has made pronouncement on this basis. The learned S.D.O. has nowhere stated that he either agreed or disagreed will', this finding. The learned S.D.O. has nowhere tried to enter into discussion of the evidence before the Tahsildar and to record a finding of his own. As such, while these observations constitute a record of the fact of the case, they do not contain a pronouncement on merits. Tho appeal has been rejected solely on the ground that it was time-barred. 5. Rejection of any application by a court without basis with an application of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, is based on the satisfaction of God, just in the same way as allowing such an application is. It is personal satisfaction. For this sufficiency or otherwise reasons adduced must be weighed by the courts seized of the application, and as such it would weigh when the court in passing an order cannot properly weigh the subject of judicial scrutiny in a revision at a subsequent stage. It is the exercise of judicial discretion alone and cannot he questioned in revision. For this sufficiency or otherwise reasons adduced must be weighed by the courts seized of the application, and as such it would weigh when the court in passing an order cannot properly weigh the subject of judicial scrutiny in a revision at a subsequent stage. It is the exercise of judicial discretion alone and cannot he questioned in revision. I am supported in this view by the pronouncement of the Hon'ble High Court in Mirza Kesar Beg v. Board of Revenue, 1975 R.D. 373 and Ram Charan and others v. Chandra Bhusan and others, 1981 R.J. 126. I myself have made pronouncements earlier in these matters in Janki v. Soney Lal, 1972 R.D. 397 and Mangli v. Putti Lal, 1974 R.D. 358. Consequently, even this argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist has no force. 6. I shall now take up the question of service on the L.M.C. on which the learned Additional Commissioner has based his reference. According to the learned Additional Commissioner, in this case there was no proper service on the Pradhan as he was reported to be not available at his house and the date of the case was intimated to the members of his house. Further, the contents of the proclamation were not explained to the parties as prescribed in para 74 of the Revenue Court Manual. The learned Additional Commissioner has referred to the case of Smt. Bhugga Devi v. Subedar, 1976 R.D. 319 and Ramyaga v. Brihapat Nath, 1978 R.D. 157. In both these cases it has been held that in mutation proceedings proclamation must be issued and a copy of it sent to the L.M.C. also. The relevant rules in Chapter A-XXXVII of the Revenue Court Manual are reproduced below: - "A-376. Where the report relates to mutation by transfer, a copy of the proclamation shall be served free of charge on the transferor and his co-sharers, if any, simultaneously with the issue of proclamation or within 15 days thereof. A-377. A copy of the proclamation shall be served free of charge in each case on the President of the Bhumi Prabandak Samiti simultaneously with the issue of proclamation or within 15 days thereof. A-378(a). A-377. A copy of the proclamation shall be served free of charge in each case on the President of the Bhumi Prabandak Samiti simultaneously with the issue of proclamation or within 15 days thereof. A-378(a). In an undisputed case of succession, which was not recorded by the Kanungo under Section 33-A, if the succession has taken place arid it is in accordance with the provisions contained in Sections 171, 172, 173, 174 and 175 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950, the Tahsildar shall direct the Annual Register to be corrected accordingly. A-378(b) If the succession is disputed, the Tahsildar shall make a summary enquiry in accordance with Section 40 and shall record such evidence as the parties may produce and also take into consideration such other evidence as may otherwise be placed before him for determining the dispute. If the succession is found to have taken place and it is in accordance with the provisions of the Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950 he shall order it to be recorded in the Annual Register." 7. As would be seen from the above rale, the scheme has distinguished between cases of mutation by transfer and by succession. In the instant case, since mutation was required after the deceased Brij Lal with the rival claimants being his adopted father and his widow, the provisions of rules A-378 and A-377 are not attracted because it is not a case of transfer. The matter starts as a case of disputed succession, but after the joint application dated October 28, 1978 the dispute ended and the learned Tahsildar was competent to direct the correction of annual register accordingly. 8. The revision is discharged and the order of the learned Tahsildar dated November 7, 1978 and the learned S.D.O. dated June 2, 1979 remain undisturbed.