JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - The only ground pressed in this writ petition, at this stage, is that the petitioner's objection was wrongly rejected on the ground that the same is not maintainable. It seems that certain holdings were standing in the name of the petitioner and notice under section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act was issued to the husband of the petitioner why the holding of the petitioner may not be clubbed in his holding and the land which was standing in the name of the petitioner was deferred as surplus. The husband also took the plea that the petitioner was his divorced wife, plea of divorce was not accepted and the land was declared surplus, as mentioned above. The petitioner subsequently filed an objection under Section 11 (2) of the Act. Along with the said objection the petitioner also filed an application for condonation of delay which was supported by an affidavit filed by the son of the petitioner. The Prescribed Authority was of the view that the case for condonation of delay has not been made out. According to the Prescribed Authority, it cannot be stated that the petitioner was hot aware of the proceedings, more so when she appeared as a witness for her husband in that very case, as such no case for condonation of delay was made out. The petitioner filed an appeal. In the appeal not only this plea but benefit of section 12 A of the Act was also claimed. The appellate court was of the view that as the petitioner appeared as a witness, she had knowledge of the proceedings; as such the finding of the Prescribed Authority will operate as res judicata against her. The view of the Additional District Judge was erroneous. Merely because a party appears as a witness for any person in a case, the finding in the case will not operate as res judicata against the witness. From the record it is clear that the name of the petitioner was entered on the record, yet no notice udder Rule 8 was given to her though the same was obligatory, as has been held by a Full Bench of this court in Shantun Kumar v. State of U.P. (1979 ALJ 1174). From the record it is clear that the name of the petitioner was entered on the record, yet no notice udder Rule 8 was given to her though the same was obligatory, as has been held by a Full Bench of this court in Shantun Kumar v. State of U.P. (1979 ALJ 1174). If a person appears as a witness it cannot be said that he or she was aware of certain proceedings against the person against whom he or she appears, and it cannot be said that the proceedings were in respect of her interest also. The Additional District Judge has not only committed manifest error of law in misreading the said Full Bench decision and applying the principles of res judicata, but also did not take into consideration the relevant factors for deciding the question of delay. The petitioner being a third party has a right to file objection under Section 11 (1) of the Act, which objection could not have been entertained only if there was a bar for the same and the question of delay was alive in the case and the delay could not be explained satisfactorily. 2. The writ petition is allowed and the order dated January 1980 (Annexure4) passed by the III Additional District Judge in quashed and he is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and hear and decide the same in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs (Petition allowed)