1. Petitioner has challenged the order of Jt. Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Jammu with power of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms, Jammu dated 2.9.2006, by virtue of which Court below has dismissed her appeal filed against mutation no. 102 dated 24.4.1999, on the ground of limitation. 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that, order is contrary to facts of the case and law on the point. That petitioner was not heard at the time of attestation of mutation and so her appeal was not time barred. That Court below has erred in passing the order without taking into the consideration the age of petitioner, who is 80 yrs. old and is illiterate. That mutation was attested without following rules and mandatory provisions of law. That law of limitation prescribes that, limitation has to be reckoned from date of knowledge. 3. Brief facts of the case are that husband of petitioner and respondent were displaced persons of Pak occupied Kashmir and they were allotted land measuring 61 kanals 16 marlas of evacuee Dept. in terms of Rehabilitation Board allotment order. That husband of the petitioner was serving in army at the time of allotment, so his name was not entered in ration card as well as form -- A. Later on, name of husband of petitioner was incorporated in cancellation register prepared in 1970 for the village Dher Tehsil R.S.Pura. That mother of her husband died and her son respondent and Lt. Raja Ram ( her husband ) started living separately along with family but land was being cultivated jointly. 4. A mutation u/s 3 of Agrarian reform Act, with regard to land came to be attested by Tesildar R.S. Pura on 24.08.1999, on the name of respondent only. 5. When petitioner, wife of Raja Ram the brother of Karam Chand came to know, she filed appeal before Court below against said mutation. This appeal was filed on 29.10.2005. Along with appeal an application u/s 5 of Limitation Act was also filed in which it was stated that impugned mutation was attested on 24.8.1999 and petitioner came to know in 2005 and so she applied for obtaining copy of Part Sarkar which was made available to her on 21.10.2005 after making efforts. That so the delay was not intentional but due to this fact. 6. That so the delay was not intentional but due to this fact. 6. Court below after hearing the parties came to conclusion that appeal is time barred and reasons has not sufficiently been explained. 7. Both the counsels are argued on limitation point as well as on merit of case. The present petition can be decided on limitation point because merit of case has not been touched by Court below. 8. As per Section-22 of Agrarian Reforms Act 1976, limitation for filing appeal is 60 days but in term section 22 sub clause 2, the provision of Jammu Kashmir Limitation Act has been made applicable. Section 5 of Limitation Act is enabling provision for condoning the delay. Section 5 of limitation act prescribes that, if sufficient cause is shown by party seeking benefit of section 5 of limitation act, the delay in filing appeal can be condoned. 9. Now law is well settled that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at very threshold and can cause justice being defeated. Every days delay explanation does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. While administering the justice, technicalities should not come in way. Sufficient cause should be given liberal approach, so that failure of justice may not cause and justice seems to be done. 10. In present case, petitioner is old lady of 80 years and is illiterate; she has specifically mentioned in appeal that mutation has been attested at her back. In application for condoning delay, it has been mentioned that, she acquired knowledge in 1st week of October 2005 and she received copy of Parat Sarkar on 21.0.2005.These averments have been supported with affidavit. Respondent herein has not rebutted these facts, because he has not filled any objection to application of condoning delay. So finding of court below that, as appellant is member of family and residing at same place, so sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning delay, is perverse in nature. In this way, averments with regard to condoning delay in preferring appeal has sufficiently been proved by petitioner. 11. Further in case, any mutation is attested in ex-party and without calling interested persons, it will amount to sufficient cause, for condoning delay in filling in filling appeal. In this way, averments with regard to condoning delay in preferring appeal has sufficiently been proved by petitioner. 11. Further in case, any mutation is attested in ex-party and without calling interested persons, it will amount to sufficient cause, for condoning delay in filling in filling appeal. In present case, name of husband of petitioner exists in cancellation Form c/4115 of 1970 at serial no. 5, in which Karam Chand has shown at No. 1, as head of family. Mutation U/S 3 A of agrarian reform act has been attested on 24.8.1999 by mutating officer without issuing any notice to the petitioner or to her husband, who were interested persons. 12. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that order of Court below is not correct and suffer from legal infirmity. It is set aside; delay in preferring appeal is condoned. For deciding the appeal on merit case is remanded back to Court below, where parties shall appear on 12.4.2012. File of court below is sent back along with this order. 13. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion