JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated April 19, 1980 passed by II Addl. District Judge Sitapur contained Annexure No. 9. The petitioner has also challenged orders dated June 23, 1979 and 30th March, 1979, the copies of which have been annexed as Annexures 2 and 4, passed by the Prescribed Authority. 2. It appears that the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 30th March, 1979 had declared 72.62 acres as surplus land in terms of irrigated land. Against that order an application under Section 13-A of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act or short 'the Act' was filed by the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority. This application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 23rd June, 1979. Aggrieved by this order dated 23rd June, 1979, petitioner had preferred appeal before the District Judge, Sitapur. This appeal was filed on August 22, 1979. An application for condonation of delay was also filed stating that after passing of the order dated 23rd June, 1979 by the Prescribed Authority, the petitioner had instructed his counsel to obtain copy of the order and inform him so that appeal may be filed petitioner's counsel, however, did not inform the petitioner so after waiting for some time when nothing was heard from his counsel. He (petitioner) came to court on August 18, 1979 and learnt that the copies were obtained by his counsel but he could not inform him. The petitioner had thus prayed that the delay in filing he appeal be condoned. No counter-affidavit was filed controverting the facts stated in the application and affidavit seeking condonation of delay. Learned Addl. District Judge, however, refused to condone the delay on the ground that the counsel of the appellant had not filed the affidavit in support of the application and the same of the counsel had also not been disclosed. Aggrieved by this order petitioner has preferred his this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pradeep Kant urged that since there was no lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner and he had been contesting the case diligently, the learned lower appellate court should have condoned the delay specially when no affidavit was filed controverting the facts urged by the petitioner in his application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pradeep Kant urged that since there was no lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioner and he had been contesting the case diligently, the learned lower appellate court should have condoned the delay specially when no affidavit was filed controverting the facts urged by the petitioner in his application. Learned Standing counsel, in reply has urged that the lower appellate court has assigned good reasons for rejecting the appeal as time barred and no case is made out for interference by this court. 4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties very carefully and I find that the petitioner had assigned good reasons for not preferring appeal within limitation. No counter-affidavit was filed controverting the facts stated in the application, and, as such, it was not at all necessary for the petitioner to have filed the affidavit of the counsel of the supporting evidence (sic). The non-disclosure of the name of the counsel in the application could not be treated to be of any material consequence as the power of the counsel who had appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Prescribed Authority was on record. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there was lack of bona fide on the pan of the petitioner and he was acting negligently in prosecuting the case. He had applied for the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated June 23, 1979 passed by the Prescribed Authority well within time. His counsel after obtaining the certified copy had failed to intimate the petitioner, and so the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for it. The delay, in the present case was also not unexplained inordinate delay. In these circumstances find the impugned order dated April 19, 1980 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Sitapur cannot be sustained as it has resulted in marriage of justice. A lenient view deserved to be taken on the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay is accordingly condoned. 5. In the result this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order dated April 19, 1980 passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Sitapur is hereby quashed and he is directed to restore the appeal filed by the petitioner to its original number and decide it on merits according to law. No order as to costs.