JUDGMENT D. Dubey, M. - Balli, son of Ram Manohar r/o village Shahpur Hardaspur, Pargana Ikdala Tahsil Khaga district Fatehpur has filed this second appeal against the order dated July 11, 1979 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. 2. The facts of the case, in short, are that the appellant had filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act in the court of Assistant Collector (S.D.O.) Khaga alleging that the plots Nos. 1304, 1313 Kha and 1316 Kha measuring 3 bigha 10 biswas were under his possession and he was sirdar of the same since before the abolition of Zamindari and that he had perfected his rights as Sirdar long before and the fact was within the knowledge of the entire village including the Sabhapati of the Goan Sabha. That on September 11, 1975 he came to know that his name is not entered in village records as Sirdar therefore, after giving due notice to the State and the Goan Sabha he has filed a suit for declaration under Section 229-B. A reply was filed on behalf of State denying the claim of the plaintiff appellant. In spite of due notice to the Sabhapati of the village no objection was filed by him. The trial court framed two issues as follows:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is Sirdar of the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession ? 2. Whether notice under Section 80, C.P.C. is given to State Government of U.P.? The suit was taken up by the trial court for evidence of the parties and Krishna Pal was examined by the plaintiff-appellant on June 3, 1976 who supported the case of the plaintiff and stated that the plaintiff had been in possession over the land in dispute since a long time and definitely from before the abolition of Zamindari. The age of this witness has been recorded as 65 years on the date on which he was examined. This witness was not cross-examined by the counsel representing the State. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W. 2 on July 20, 1976 and stated that he had been in possession over the land in dispute from before the abolition of Zamindari without any break. The case was adjourned for August 11, 1976 for taking remaining evidence. This witness was not cross-examined by the counsel representing the State. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W. 2 on July 20, 1976 and stated that he had been in possession over the land in dispute from before the abolition of Zamindari without any break. The case was adjourned for August 11, 1976 for taking remaining evidence. The order sheet does not indicated whether remaining evidence was to be produced by the plaintiff or the remaining evidence of both the parties. However, the suit was fixed for hearing on August 11, 1976, August 27, 1976, September 14, 1976, October 5, 1976 and October 27, 1976 and had to be adjourned due to the absence of the presiding officer. On November 17, 1976 the Presiding Officer passed an order dismissing the suit of the copy of the orders could be sent to the Tahsildar concerned for starting proceedings under Section 122-B against the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff filed a belated appeal on May 12, 1978 in the court of the Commissioner, Allahabad Division against the order of the Asstt. Collector (S.D.O.) Khaga stating that he was not properly informed by the clerk of his counsel regarding the judgment passed by the S.D.O. dismissing his suit. On the other hand he was informed that his matter has been referred to the Tehsildar Khaga for further necessary action and consequent to that information he attended the court of Tahsildar where he was informed that his suit had been dismissed by the S.D.O. and that he will have to pay damages for encroaching the Gaon Sabha land. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal filed by him may be admitted after condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned Additional Commissioner did not consider the ground of delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. 4. Against the above order of the learned Addl. Commissioner this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff appellant. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for appellant pointed out that the reasons for filing the appeal in the court of Commissioner with delay were sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed by the appellant. Commissioner this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff appellant. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. The learned counsel for appellant pointed out that the reasons for filing the appeal in the court of Commissioner with delay were sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed by the appellant. The reasons are convincing and natural and have not been controverted by any counter affidavit of the State and, therefore, there was no reason for disbelieving the sworn affidavit of the appellant. The learned counsel relied on the ruling reported in 1972 R.D. 55. He further pointed out that the court's discretion as far as possible, should be exercised in favour of hearing and not to shut out hearing as done by the learned Addl. Commissioner in the recent case. He placed reliance on 1978 A.R.C.(S.C.) 496. He has further pointed out that the court should examined the merits and demerits of the appeal or applications given by the aggrieved person for getting the benefit of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and the same should not be rejected on merit technical ground. He relied on 1982 A.R.R. 1(Hindi Section). 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew my attention towards the provisions of the Revenue Court Manual wherein detailed procedures have been laid down for the guidance of the Revenue Courts for hearing of revenue suits and writing out the judgment. He pointed out that the learned trial court, though framed 2 issues, for consideration but did not touch them while writing its judgment. Therefore; the judgment of the trial court was ab initio illegal. 8. The learned D.G.C.(R.) representing the State pointed out that in second appeal the only point for consideration is whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is challengable or not and whether the appeal bound by prescribed time should have been accepted for consideration by the lower appellate court. He pointed out that the time prescribed for filing the appeal before the first appellate court is 30 days whereas the appeal was filed after a lapse of nearly 1 years. He contended that the rulings pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant lay down broad principles for the guidance of the courts and do not affect the judgment given by the learned Addl. Commissioner. He contended that the rulings pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant lay down broad principles for the guidance of the courts and do not affect the judgment given by the learned Addl. Commissioner. He pointed out that the law of limitation is very clear and it should be followed Addl. Commissioner indicates that the relevant points have been considered by him while passing his order and that it does not require any interference. 9. I have carefully gone through the grounds of appeal and the sworn affidavit filed by the appellant in the court of the learned Commissioner, Allahabad Division. The affidavit clearly explained the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner. From the file it is evident that the appellant is an illiterate person and can neither write nor read and belongs to a backward society. The facts mentioned in the affidavit have not been controverted by the State. Even the learned Addl. Commissioner has not given any reason why he did not place any reliance on the facts mentioned in the affidavit. In these circumstances the rulings mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in A.R.R. (1982) 1 (Hindi Section) and 1972 R.D. 55 are fully applicable in the present case. 10. From the perusal of the file of the trial court it is evident that the plaintiff was neither allowed to adduce his entire evidence nor his oral evidence was examined while giving the judgment by the S.D.O. Khaga. From the file it appears that the learned S.D.O. closed the case abruptly without taking full evidence of the parties and jumped to the conclusion that the land in dispute belongs to the Gaon Sabha without assigning any reason for coming to this conclusion. The learned Addl. Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the technicality of limitation and in this way the plaintiff's case was shut down without proper hearing at any stage. In this context the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 1978 A.R.C. 496 (S.C.) is very relevant for the present case. 11. In view of the above, I allow the second appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below and remanded the case to the trial courts for deciding the suit of the plaintiff afresh after giving full opportunity to the parties and complying with the provisions laid down in the Revenue Court Manual.