JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This second appeal has been filed against the decree and judgment of Addl. Commissioner Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 18-5-1977 passed in first appeal No. 114 of 1975 of District Jaunpur against the order and decree dated 26-4-1975 passed by Asst. Collector 1st Class, Jaunpur in a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 regarding suit plot of village Khana Patti, Pargana Kariyat Dost, District Jaunpur. 2. In brief the fats of this case are that the appellant and Bakai, respondent No. 1 filed a suit under Section 176 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The suit was contested. The dispute was referred to the Arbitrator. The arbitrator gave his reward on 9-9-1974. This award was confirmed by the trial court on 30-9-1974. On the basis of award the lots were prepared and the final decree was passed by the trial court. Then the present appellant filed the appeal which was time barred by more than three months. The Addl. Commissioner dismissed the appeal as time-barred by his impugned order against which this second appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the records. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellant was not present during the proceeding in the trial court. The suit was contested by his brother Bakai. Therefore, the suit was not properly decided and the lots were not properly prepared. He has suffered a loss when he came in the village then he knew the result of the suit and then filed the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that preliminary decree as well as final decree were prepared on the basis of award. No objection against the final decree was also filed by the appellant, therefore, the order passed by the first appellate court is perfectly justified and there was no ground to admit the time-barred, appeal. He also argued that when the court below has no exercised the discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in favour of the appellant it should not be exercised in this second appeal. 5. No objection was filed by the appellant when the lots were prepared. He had also not filed the objection against the arbitration award. He also argued that when the court below has no exercised the discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in favour of the appellant it should not be exercised in this second appeal. 5. No objection was filed by the appellant when the lots were prepared. He had also not filed the objection against the arbitration award. He has also not appealed against the confirmation of the award by the trial court, therefore, it cannot be said that he was vigilant about his interest at any stage of the proceeding. If the award is against him now the remedies lies for the cancellation of It. In these circumstances of the case I also do not consider to allow this appeal to be admitted being time-barred. In these circumstance of the case this second appeal too fails and accordingly it is dismissed.