Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State. Nobody appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 when the case was called out for hearing, though notice has been validly served on him. 2. The writ application has been dismissed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the same was filed after two and half years of passing of the order by the appellate authority under section 48-D of the Bihar Tenancy Act. No period of limitation is prescribed for filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Absence of period of limitation does not mean that the application can be filed any time. It should be filed within a reasonable time. In each case the Court has to consider as to whether the person concerned has approached this Court diligently or not. In the present case, we find that the Sebait is an old man and he has clearly stated that because of his illness he could not file the writ application earlier. In our view, it was a fit case where the writ application should not have been dismissed on the technical ground of delay, specially when me case of the appellant was not considered on merit by the appellate Court and was dismissed on the ground of limitation of 14 days only. We have perused the appellate order, anneuxre-5, to the writ application. The appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay of 14 days. It is clearly stated on behalf of the appellant that the Sebait was ill and as such the appeal could not be filed within time. In our view, the appellate authority has committed an error in not condoning the delay of 14 days only for filing an appeal. 3. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.6.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3842 of 2000 is set aside and the appellate order dated 18.11.1997 contained in annexure-5 to the writ application is also set aside and the matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Araria (appellate authority) to dispose of the appeal on merit. In the result, this appeal is allowed.