Petitioners seek issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 11.5.2004 passed by respondent No. 2, Financial Commissioner, whereby he has allowed the application seeking condonation of delay. 2. Petitioners aggrieved of the impugned order have challenged it by means of the present petition on the ground that the respondent No. 2 arbitrarily, mechanically and without application of mind to the law has allowed the application for condonation of delay. 3. It is recorded in the impugned order that the respondents have stated that they had no knowledge of the impugned mutation Nos. 190, 254, 257, 286, 295, 336 of village Kothipora till 29.10.2001. On getting knowledge they applied for obtaining certified copy of the mutations. It is stated that Parti-Sarkar is said to have gutted in fire, therefore, copy of Parti-Patwar was issued to the respondents on 01-05-2001. 4. The learned Financial Commissioner, Agrarian Reforms appreciating the facts constituting sufficient cause shown, by the respondents for condoning the delay, has observed as under : "For the foregoing reasons and facts explained above there is sufficient ground for filing the appeal by the counsel on behalf of petitioners for condonation of delay. If the petitioners satisfies the court that there was sufficient cause which reasonably prevented him from filing the appeal in time. In every case of delay there is always some lapse on the part of the applicant but that alone shall not be the cause to close the doors for him. Therefore I accept the application filed by the counsel on behalf of the petitioners and the delay is condoned". 5. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that order of the respondent No. 2 is arbitrary and without application of mind, is not made out. He has appreciated the sufficient cause shown to him and exercised the discretion in favour of the respondents for condoning the delay. Failure of the party to account for his non-diligence beyond the statutory period provided by the Limitation Act of limitation to file the appeal, does not close his right to challenge the order of which he is aggrieved. He has to satisfy the court that delay is caused because of certain reasons. If those reasons, on appreciation find weightage, the court exercises the discretion in favour of the party seeking to condone delay. These are discretionary orders which are not generally required to be interfered. He has to satisfy the court that delay is caused because of certain reasons. If those reasons, on appreciation find weightage, the court exercises the discretion in favour of the party seeking to condone delay. These are discretionary orders which are not generally required to be interfered. While dealing with such proposition the Apex Court in case reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 has observed as under: "Considerations of bona fides or due diligence are always material and relevant when the Court is dealing with applications made under S. 14 of the Limitation Act. In dealing with such applications the court is called upon to consider the effect of the combined provisions of Ss. 5 and 14. Therefore, considerations which have been expressly made material and relevant by the provisions of S. 14 cannot to the same extent and in the same manner be invoked in dealing with the applications which fall to be decided only under S.5 without preference to S. 14 The effect of the explanation is that if the party who has applied for extension of period shown that the delay was due to any of the facts mentioned in the explanation that would be treated as sufficient cause, and after it is treated as sufficient cause the question may then arise whether discretion should be exercised in favour of the party or not". 6. I decline to interfere with the order passed by the respondent No. 2 an appreciation of the sufficient cause, which is not generally required to be disturbed being discretionary. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.