Honble TIWARI, M.—This is a revsion filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (in short `the Act) against the impugned order dated 2.12.04 of Additional Divisional Commissioner Jodhpur by which he accepted the application filed under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 2. Facts, in brief, leading to the revision are that the non-petitioners-appellants filed an appeal under section 75 of the Act before Additional Divisional Commissioner Jodhpur against the order dated 28.5.70/8.6.1970 of the District Collector Jodhpur and the mutation No. 165 dated 23.12.1970. Simultaneously an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed which was accepted by the Additional Divisional Commissioner Jodhpur vide his impugned order dated 2.12.04, aggrieved against which the instant revision is filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the appeal before Additional Divisional Commissioner Jodhpur was filed on 2.12.2003 against the order dated 28.5.70/8.6.1970 after delay of around 32 years. This appeal was time barred but Additional Divisional Commissioner Jodhpur condoned the delay and allowed the application put up under section 5 of the Limitation Act without assigning any sufficient ground. The learned counsel cited 2001(1) RRT 77, 2003(1) DNJ 165, 2004 WLC (NUC) 712 and 2007(2) RRT 785 in support of his contention that without sufficient ground for condonation of delay, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was illegally accepted. On the site of the disputed land there are factorites and the disputed land being initially allotted to RIICO was subsequently allotted to many more entrepreneurs. As such Additional Divisional Commissioner Jodhpur erred in condoning the delay and accepting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. I have given thoughful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel and perused the impugned order of the lower Court and gone through the record carefully. 6. Additional Division Commissioner Jodhpur vide his impugned order dated 2.12.04 condoned the delay and allowed the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in respect of the appeal preferred before him under Section 75 of the Act. While condoning the delay it is not the length of the period which is material but sufficiency of the ground for condonation is more important. While condoning the delay it is not the length of the period which is material but sufficiency of the ground for condonation is more important. Additional Divisional Commissioner Jodhpur in his impugned order dated 2.12.04 has explicitly stated that there is substantial question of law and justice involved in the appeal before him. He chose to decide the appeal on merits rather than on technical ground of limitation, so he condoned the delay. 7. When substantial question of justice is pitted against technical consideration of limitation, substantial justice should be given preference over technical consideration and appeal should be decided on merits- rather than on purely technical ground. Procedure and technical matters are handmaiden to justice; they should not be allowed to strangulate deliverance of justice. 8. In light of above discussion, it is clear that Additional Division Commissioner Jodhpur has neither committed any illegality nor jurisdictional error nor material irregularity in passing the impugned order. 9. It is also worth mentioned here that an order of condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is an interim order, as held in 2001 RRT(2) 1014. Under section 84-A of the Act revision is not maintainable against an interim order. 10. Resultantly, the revision is dismissed being non-maintainable. Pronounced.