JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.—We have heard the learned Counsel who represents the appellant as also the learned Government Advocate who represents the Respondents 1 and 2. Since the appeal is only for admission before us today we have not issued notice to the remaining Respondents. 2. The principal point canvassed on behalf of the appellant is that if it is permissible from the record to demonstrate that the original order of the Tribunal requires reconsideration on valid grounds then, the aspect of the delay which has been held as a total bar against the appellant by the learned Single Judge should not disentitle the appellant from seeking corrective action. The appellant's learned Counsel has vehemently submitted that it is well settled law that a Court will always either condone the delay or exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a situation wherein total justification has to be done to the parties. What he points out is that the appellant's father was both old and ailing in the year 1977 when the order was passed and that this was the reason why, the Tribunal's order granting joint occupancy rights was not challenged. In respect of certain subsequent disputes, several proceedings have been instituted and we refrain from commenting about the same because the competent Court will look into those issues. It is contended before us that the appellant is the daughter, that she was residing in Bombay and that she had no knowledge of the exact nature of the order passed by the Tribunal until she filed a suit for partition in the year 1998. What is pointed out is that it was only at this point of time that the exact consequences of the Tribunals order surfaced and that since the appellant had no knowledge upto 1997 that the delay of 20 years which is held against her is incorrect. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. We have also considered the legal and the factual position very carefully. We do not dispute the correctness of the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellants that Courts do and are required to adopt a relatively flexible attitude in situations where delay may provide a technical hurdle. But this is a case in which the position is slightly different. We have also considered the legal and the factual position very carefully. We do not dispute the correctness of the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellants that Courts do and are required to adopt a relatively flexible attitude in situations where delay may provide a technical hurdle. But this is a case in which the position is slightly different. It is not the point of time at which the present appellant came to know of the Tribunal's order because the present appellant was not a party before the Tribunal. It was her father who was the contestant there and the present appellant was nowhere in the picture. It may be that the appellant who claims to be one of the L Rs is aggrieved by the order but that issue cannot be agitated at this point of time for the principal reason that in our considered view, the only party if at all was aggrieved by the Tribunal's order was the appellant's father who alone had the right to challenge that order. Once the complexion of the facts is carefully assessed it will be seen that the point of time when the challenge has been presented which is 20 years later also aggravates the situation because it would lead to extremely dangerous consequences if Courts were to permit parties at a late point of time to present challenges to the Tribunal's orders and to question them. It is in these circumstances, that we decline to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We make it clear however that none of the observations made in these proceeding should come in the way of the parties in any of the other proceedings which will be decided by the concerned judicial forums independently and on merits and it is also made clear that all contentions are kept open. With these observations, the appeal which fails, to stand disposed off. No order as to costs.