1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of respondent no. 1 dated 8.5.2008, by virtue of which he has dismissed two appeals of petitioner while exercising the jurisdiction under Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Udhampur. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds, that he is owner of land measure 9 kanals and 10 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 1571/169 situated at Jandrore, Tehsil Ramnagar, District Udhampur. That his forefather donated the land for religious purposes. That land measuring 3 kanals and 7 marlas was donated for its use for religious activity to general public. This land is Banjar Qadeem from old times. That out of this land measuring 3 kanals and 7 marlas, there is a Peer Sathan on 1 kanals and 10 marlas, on 10 marlas there is located Masjid along with one room, land measuring 1 kanal 7 marlas has been utilized for drain, the remaining land was donated to Education Deptt. for school in 1964. That father of respondents in connivance with Revenue Officers got the mutation of the land attested unlawfully in 1981 u/s 4 of act and in 1992 u/s 8 of act respectively. 3. That in 2006 respondent abruptly starting interfering in the land afore stated and made attempt to raise construction. That when it was objected, the father of respondent no. 3 declared that Revenue entries are on their names. After coming to know about this fact, he filed two appeals before the respondent no. 1 and both have been dismissed being time barred. That respondent no.1 without appreciating the grounds of the appeal and without appreciating the true matrix of the case dismissed the case. That order of mutations passed by respondent no. 2 is illegal and bad. That father of the private respondents died on 13.2.2008 before pronouncement of judgment and so the order is also illegal. 4. Heard both the counsels at length and perused and record of the Trial Court. 5. It reveals that petitioner herein filed two appeals, one challenging mutation no. 1113 u/s 8 of A. R. Act dated 19.8.1992 and other thereby challenging the mutation no. 1083 u/s 4 of Act dated 23.12.1981 before the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Udhampur. In both the appeals, he narrated facts which have been narrated in the revision petition. Along with appeals condonation of delay applications were also filed. 1113 u/s 8 of A. R. Act dated 19.8.1992 and other thereby challenging the mutation no. 1083 u/s 4 of Act dated 23.12.1981 before the Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Udhampur. In both the appeals, he narrated facts which have been narrated in the revision petition. Along with appeals condonation of delay applications were also filed. In the condonation of delay application, it was pleaded that he was totally unaware of passing of mutations by Tehsildar. He came to know in this week when respondents starting constructing shops. When he enquired from Revenue Office, he came to know about impugned mutations. 6. The Appellant Court after hearing both the parties and considering the facts and law, dismissed the appeals on 8.5.2008 by way of a common order on the ground that appeal being time barred. 7. Section 21 of A. R. Act, 1976 deals with appeals and revisions. It reads as under:- (3) Any person aggrieved by a final order of a Collector or a Revenue Officer of a class lower than that of a Collector may prefer an appeal to the Commissioner having jurisdiction in the area to which the appeal relates. (4) The Revenue Minister may at any time call for the record of any case in which a Tehsildar or an Assistant Commissioner has passed orders in respect of evacuees land or State land or of any case in which Commissioner has passed final order and if he finds that a question of law or public interest is involved in the case, he may pass such orders thereon as he thinks fit; Provided that no order shall be passed against any party without affording that party an opportunity of being heard. 8. Question of law means application or interpretation of legal principle or statues. It involves the interpretation of principle that are potentially applicable to other case. It relates to determination of what is law, how it is applied to facts of case. It is purely legal in contention. 9. I have care fully gone through record of court below which reveal that in girdawari of kharif 1971, name of chandu, the father of respondents 4 and 5 exist in cultivating column. So mutations under section 4 and 8 of act have rightly been attested. It is purely legal in contention. 9. I have care fully gone through record of court below which reveal that in girdawari of kharif 1971, name of chandu, the father of respondents 4 and 5 exist in cultivating column. So mutations under section 4 and 8 of act have rightly been attested. Further in memo of both appeals before court below, petitioner has mentioned in para 2 that 6 kanals of land is under tenancy of respondent channu. Persual of girdawari reveals that out of total land 9k 10 marals, 6k 8 marals is abi, 1k 7 marals gair mumkin kassi, 10 marals masjid and 1 kanals 10 marlas banzar kadim, so petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order of mutations, because he has neither title nor he is in possession of land. 10. In the present case mutations under section 4 of Act has been attested on 23.12.1981 and u/s 8 of act has been attested on 19.8.1992 respectively, appeals before court below were filled on 27.4.2006. So both were time barred, no sufficient cause have been shown. Law of limitation has to applied, where party fails to show sufficient cause. In AIR 1998 PAGE 2276 Case Title P.K. Ramachandran v/s State of Kerala it is held as under:- (C) Limitation act 36 of 1953 -- Section 5 -- Delay -- Condonation of -- Law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by statue -- Court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable grounds. Para 6 -- Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour prescribed by statue court has no power to extend period of limitation on equitable ground. The discretion exercised by high court was thus, neither proper nor judicious. The order condoning delay cannot be sustained. 11. In present case no sufficient cause has been shown in condonation of delay application by petitioner filled before appellant court. 12. Another argument put forth by counsel for petitioner, that when order impugned was announced on 8.5.2008, Chandu, the respondent before appellate court, was dead, so order was passed against dead person, so it is nullity. This argument does not hold good. Because perusal of record reveals that, when chandu died on 13.2.2008, the case was already heard and was fixed for judgment. This argument does not hold good. Because perusal of record reveals that, when chandu died on 13.2.2008, the case was already heard and was fixed for judgment. Now law is settled that when matter has been heard and case is fixed for judgment and during this period a party dies, it has no effect on judgment. Judgment is presumed to be legal and passed in life time of deceased party. 13. In view of what has discussed above, this revision petition is dismissed All connected misc. applications are consigned to record. File of court below is sent back along with this order. Present file be consigned to record after compilation.