JUDGMENT 1. - This cross-objection has been reported to be 566 days beyond limitation and the cross-objector has filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 2. Shri Gani, learned counsel for the cross-objector has submitted that earlier the applicant filed a Revision Petition and therefore, he is entitled to get the delay condoned. However, the revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 22.2.2002 not only on the ground of being not maintainable making an observation that petitioner could have filed the cross-objections but on the ground of delay also. The Court observed as under: "The reasoning given by the petitioner does not constitute ground for condonation of delay and it only shows the negligence of the petitioner; therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed." 3. As the revision itself was time-barred and dismissed not only on the ground of maintainability but also on the ground of delay, the explanation furnished by the cross- objector does not inspire confidence. 4. The case raises a substantial question of law as to whether the Court has a power to condone the delay or has power to extend the period of limitation which amounts to legislation. If the revision filed by the petitioner itself was not maintainable and the same has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation being time barred as this Court had not considered it proper to condone the delay, accepting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, it has further been observed by the Court inadvertently that the one permissible course for the petitioner therein could have been to file cross-objections, whether in view of such observations, time barred cross objections after 566 days inordinate delay is permissible. in such an eventuality whether petitioner can take the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and if the revision was maintainable whether benefit of the said provisions is available to the petitioner. 5. in such an eventuality whether petitioner can take the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and if the revision was maintainable whether benefit of the said provisions is available to the petitioner. 5. In AIR 2002 SCW 21 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborately examined the scope of Section 14 of the Act where an earlier suit had been withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 13 of the Code in such circumstances, it was held that the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act cannot be available to such a party. 6. In P.K. Ramchandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that law of limitation may adversely affect a particular party but it must be applied rigorously for the reason that the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation. The discretion given to the Court has be exercised judiciously if the facts of the case so warrants. In that case, the earlier judgment that provisions of Section 5 requires a liberal interpretation had not been followed. 7. Similar view has been reiterated in Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai, Baburao Patil v. Shantaram Baburao Patil & Ors., JT 2001 (5) SC 608 , and in Smt. Prabha v. Ram Parkash Kalra, 1987 (Suppl.) SCC 338 . 8. Thus, in view of the above the delay cannot be condoned and the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands rejected. As a consequence, the cross-objection also stands dismissed.Cross-Objection Dismissed. *******