1. This revision petition has been directed against the order of Jt. Agrarian Reforms Commissioner (With powers of Commissioner Agrarian Reforms) Jammu dated 10.2.2003, by virtue of which court below has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against mutation no. 209 attested u/s 7 of Agrarian Reform Act 1976, pertaining to Khasra No. 3 land measuring 18 kanals 18 marlas situated at Village Chack Pouni band Tehsil jammu. 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, she was owner of land and she filed a resumption application before Tehsildar. That Naib Tehsildar jammu attested that mutation no; 209 u/s 7 and rejected his application form without assigning the reason. That Naib Tehsildar was not competent under Agrarian Reforms Act to attest the mutation. That resumption application is always presumed to be disputed matter and so Niab Tehsildar was not competent to attest the mutation. That instructions given in standing order 23-A have not been followed. That no notice was issued to her by Mutating Officer. That land is situated at village Chack Pouni Bandh Brahamana, whereas mutation has been attested at Village Dumal. That Court below has dismissed the appeal as time barred and merit has not been discussed, which has caused injustice to him. 3. I have heard counsel for petitioner and gone through the record. Counsel for petitioner has also filed written arguments. 4. From the perusal of records it reveals that, petitioner filed an appeal with regard to mutation no; 209 attested by Niab Tehsildar on 2.1.89 attested under section 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act in favour of respondents. In appeal petitioner challenged the mutation on various ground of procedural lapse committed by Mutating officer while attesting the mutation. With regard to delay in filing the appeal, an application u/s 5 of limitation Act was also filed. The grounds mentioned application are that, during recent operation she was told by settlement staff that Naib Tehsildar Jammu has attested the mutation and rejected her resumption form.That said information was available to her on 20.11.95 and thereafter she applied for copy of concerned mutation. That only copy of Parat patwar was made available to her on 27th Nov., 1995 but Parat Sarkar was not provided to her as it was told to her that it has not been deposited in concerned Office. Court below after hearing the parties rejected the appeal as time barred. That only copy of Parat patwar was made available to her on 27th Nov., 1995 but Parat Sarkar was not provided to her as it was told to her that it has not been deposited in concerned Office. Court below after hearing the parties rejected the appeal as time barred. The concluding para of order reads as under: 5. I have carefully examined the record placed on the file and also applied my mind thoughtfully to the legal as well as factual aspects of the case including contentions for both the parties and found that mutation No. 209 under section 7 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 of Village Check Puni Wand has been disposed of by Naib Tehsildar, Jammu on 02-01-1989 and appeal has been filed on 30-11-1995 i.e. after a period of more than 6 years, whereas period of limitation under section 22 sub section 1 of Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 is only 60 days and the application seeking condo nation of delay in filing the appeal does not contain any satisfactory/reasonable reasons which would justify delay of more than 6 years. Secondly, the appellant has filed appeal on the basis of "Parat -- Patwar mutation" and failed to provide a copy of Part-Sarkar of mutation till date. 6. It is, pertinent to mention here that no appeal lies on a copy of "Parat Patwar of mutation". So without going into further merits of the case. The appeal is not maintainable and the same is, therefore, dismissed without any costs on the point of limitation only. Order announced in the presence of both the parties. File shall be consigned to record after its due completion. Order Announced: 10.2.2003 Sd/- Jt.Agr.Reforms Commissioner (With Powers of Commissioner Agr. Reforms), Jammu. 7. Bare perusal of order impugned, it is evident that court below has dismissed appeal of petitioner on twin grounds. Firstly that, appeal is time barred and secondly it is accompanied by copy of PARART SARKAR. 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. 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. Sufficient cause is inferred from facts of particular case. 10. In present case, it has been stated that petitioners was not called despite filling the application for resumption at the time of attesting mutation and mutation has been attested ignoring mandatory provisions of law and not on spot. 11. The Agrarian Reform Act. Of 1976 was brought into existence to extinguish relationship between land-lord and tenants. The scheme was formulated as to how and in which manner this relationship comes to an end. In order to get benefit of section 4 and 8 of Act, it has to first establish that there was relationship between parties of that land lord and tenants. The tenants who was in cultivating possession of land of Girdawari of land of 1971 and was paying rent to land lord would be entitled to get the benefit u/s of 4 of the Act. After the land is extinguished to State u/s 4 of Act, there comes right of land lord for getting land resumed in his favour under the provisions of section 7 (2) of Agrarian Reform Act. 12. While attesting mutation, mutating officer has to follow certain agrarian reforms rules and various instructions given in standing orders issued from time to time. 13. 12. While attesting mutation, mutating officer has to follow certain agrarian reforms rules and various instructions given in standing orders issued from time to time. 13. Procedure for dealing with resumption petition has been provided in Rule 21 of agrarian reform rules, it prescribes that, whenever resumption petition is presented, revenue officer shall conduct inquiry and shall give opportunity to all parties. After conducting inquiry appropriate order is to be passed. 14. Rule 14 of agrarian reform rules mandate that mutations shall be attested in accordance with procedure provided by standing order 23-A on spot, by revenue officer. 15. Instruction 51 of standing order 23 -- A mandate that mutation work has to be done on spot. 16. All these above mentioned provisions of law are mandatory in nature, revenue officer ( mutating officer ) has no power to bye pass these provisions of law. 17. All these violation committed by mutating officer, while attesting the mutation in dispute, has been mentioned in memo of appeal filed before court below. But court below has not given any findings on these aspects. Further appellant along with memo of appeal has annexed copy of application, which reveals that Copy of PARAT SARKAR is not available in Tehsil office. This also cast a doubt about attestation of mutation impugned suspiciously. All these questions have not been properly adhered by court below. 18. It is cardinal principle of law that if any one having interest in property is condemned unheard, it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. Any appeal filed against order passed in absence of party and without calling him, will amount to sufficient cause in term of section 5 of limitation act. Some aspects of merit of case has to seen, while deciding the delay application, so that injustice may not be caused to party seeking relief in term of section 5 of limitation act. 19. In present case fact of filing of resumption application is admitted. Mutation no. 209 dt.2.1.1989 under section 7 of agrarian reform act with regard to land has been attested in absence of petitioner and in violation of provisions of law mentioned above. Court below has not exercised his jurisdiction in consonance with law governing the matter. 20. 19. In present case fact of filing of resumption application is admitted. Mutation no. 209 dt.2.1.1989 under section 7 of agrarian reform act with regard to land has been attested in absence of petitioner and in violation of provisions of law mentioned above. Court below has not exercised his jurisdiction in consonance with law governing the matter. 20. Hence, in view of what has been discussed above, present revision petition is allowed, consequently delay in filling appeal before court below is condoned and appeal is accepted. Case is remanded back to mutating officer to pass fresh order after conducting de novo inquiry into the matter under law. He shall conduct inquiry in presence of all parties. Record of court below is sect back along with this order. File of this court be consigned to record.