Order: 1. The original petitioner hereinafter referred to as the petitioner was the landowner within the meaning of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act 10 of 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner is no more and his legal representatives have come on record. The second respondent claims himself to be the tenant within the meaning of the Act. On 11th April, 1979, second respondent succeeded in obtaining an order from the Sub Collector, Kumbakonam directing his name to be recorded as the tenant under the Act. The petitioner preferred a revision to the first respondent on 13th June, 1979. There is no dispute about the presentation of the revision to the first respondent on 13th June, 1979. There is no dispute that the presentation of the revision on that date was within time. The said revision was returned on 21st June, 1979, pointing out certain defects and the petitioner was called upon to rectify the same. The revision petition was re-presented on 1st December, 1980, By the impugned order dated 9th December, 1980, the first respondent has rejected the very revision and the said order is being impugned in the present writ petition. The reason given for rejecting the revision is that there was a delay of 18 months. The fact remains that there was a regular revision preferred within time and the same was returned for rectification and it was re-presented on 1st December, 1980. It was not as if the petitioner had no valid reason to explain the delay in re-presentation. He ventured to offer an explanation by a subsequent petition which however proved abortive on a technical ground that the application to condone the delay, after orders had come to be passed in the revision itself, was not maintainable. The reasons offered for the delay in representation are not totally unconvincing. It is claimed that the counsel who was in charge of the case of the petitioner left the locale and shifted his practice to some other place. It is only a question of condoning the delay in re-presentation and the explanation offered cannot be eschewed as unacceptable. Further we do not get any indication from the order impugned that any particular time was prescribed for re-presentation of the papers in revision. It is only a question of condoning the delay in re-presentation and the explanation offered cannot be eschewed as unacceptable. Further we do not get any indication from the order impugned that any particular time was prescribed for re-presentation of the papers in revision. It there was a delay in representing the said papers within any prescribed time, interests of justice required that the petitioner ought to have been called upon to explain the delay and if there has been a failure to do so, then there would have been a warrant to reject the revision. This salutary principle has been omitted to be applied by the first respondent, and this has practically resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The revision having been preferred within time and when there was,” in fact, an acceptable explanation for the delay in re-presentation, if that was there and which explanation, of course, the petitioner could not bring to the notice of the first respondent at the relevant point of time in the circumstances stated above, the rejection of revision by the first respondent cannot be countenanced and upheld. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is allowed; the revision filed by the petitioner will be taken on file by the first respondent and disposed of on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, and in any event, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, after giving notice to the second respondent. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.