JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, J. - This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Meerut dated 30th April, 1982, rejecting the application of the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 5-1-1982 dismissing appeal no. 29 of 1980 preferred by them against the judgment of the Prescribed Authority dated 5-3-1979. 2. It appears that Dhani Ram, father of the petitioners died on 5-9-78. On his death, the properties in dispute were inherited by the two petitioners who were his sone. 3. The draft statement under sub-section (3) of Section 8 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was issued by the Competent Authority on 27-11-1978. Dhani Ram had died and the petitioners were not impleaded as parties in this case and the order under sub-section (4) of Section 8 was passed against Dhani Ram on 5-3-1979. Thereafter, the proceedings of taking over possession of the properties declared surplus were started by the Competent Authority of the said proceedings, notice under sub-section (5) of Section 10 were issued. This notice was also issued in the name of Dhani Ram and not n the time of any one of the two petitioners. The notice was received but hereafter, legal advice was sought and the appeal was filed under Section 33 of the Act before the District Judge. The appeal was since barred by time, the petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay stating that as Dhani Ram was dead and that the petitioners acquired knowledge of the proceeding under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for the first time when the notice issued to Dhani Ram under sub-section (5) of Section 10 was served, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. The appeal, which was filed by the petitioners, on 16-5-80 was however, dismissed in default of the appearance of the petitioners on 5th January, 1982. On 18th March, 1982, then petitioner moved an application along with two separate affidavits of the petitioners giving explanations for non-appearance and making a prayer for recalling the order dated 5-1-1982. 4. The ground taken for recalling the order of 5th January, 1982 was that petitioner no. 1 was all on the date fixed for hearing, hence he could not appear. Mukhram Singh, petitioner no. 4. The ground taken for recalling the order of 5th January, 1982 was that petitioner no. 1 was all on the date fixed for hearing, hence he could not appear. Mukhram Singh, petitioner no. 2, alleged that he was residing in the city of Meerut and as the case being looked after by petitioner no. 1, he bona fide thought that appearance would be put by Harkesh in the appeal on the date of hearing, hence, his default of non-appearance was bona fide. 5. The learned District Judge by the order dated 13-4-1982 rejected the application. He although accepted the plea that Harkash, petitioner no. 1, could not appear on the 5th January, 1982 when the appeal was listed for hearing on account of his illness but the affidavit of petitioner no. 2 Mukhram Singh was not accepted. The learned Judge found that merely because the pairvi of the appeal was being done by petitioner no. 1 is no ground as to why Mukhram Singh petitioner no. 2 could not appear on the 5th January, 1982. In this view of the matter, he rejected the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in moving the application for restoration of the appeal. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have come to this Court. It is fundamental that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should be liberally construed in the manner that it advance justice. A pedantic and technical view of Section 5 is more then often found to have defected its course. The instant is a typical case of illustrating the result of appeal due to a narrower view taken by the District Judge. Out of the two petitioners, he had accepted that the cause for non-appearance of petitioner no. 1 was sufficient. The averment of Mukhram Singh, petitioner no. 2, that he was residing out of the village and being under the impression that the appeal would be looked after by petitioner no. I, if he did not appear that cannot be considered else but bona fide. The learned District Judge committed an error apparent on the face of the record by dis condoning the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and in rejecting the application refusing to condone the delay. I, if he did not appear that cannot be considered else but bona fide. The learned District Judge committed an error apparent on the face of the record by dis condoning the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act and in rejecting the application refusing to condone the delay. As there was a sufficient cause, the judgment of the District Judge refusing to recall the order dated 5-1-82 is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders of the District Judge dated 30-4-1982 and 5th January, 1982 are quashed. The District Judge is directed to decide the application filed under Section o of the Limitation Act in the appeal on merits and, thereafter, if he holds that cause of delay in filing the appeal was sufficient, he would decide the appeal afresh. 8. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.