Judgment :- 1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 12.12.2008,m RC No.12887/96 being contrary to law. 2. The petitioners filed a petition to be declared as hereditary trustees of Arulmighu Mannarswamy and Pachaiamman Temple situated at Annadhanapatti, Gugai, Salem. The application filed under Section 63(b) of the Hindu Religious Endowment Act was allowed by the Joint Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. 3. The respondent nos.2 to 14 filed RC 12400/05/D2 for permission to file an appeal against the order in favour of the petitioners on the ground that the respondent nos.2 to 14, though having hereditary trusteeship right were impleaded as parties. The application filed by the respondents for leave to file appeal was treated to be belated, having not been filed within the stipulated period for filing of the appeal. 4. The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department, came to a prima facie opinion, that the respondent nos. 2 to 14 were necessary parties, therefore, allowed the application for condoning the delay in filing leave to appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, as the respondents have failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 10 months and 4 days in filing the appeal. 6. It is also the contention of the learned counsel that merit of the case could not be a ground for condoning the delay. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contends, that while disposing of the application for condoning the delay, the respondent no.1 has given opinion on merit of controversy, which is not permissible in law. The question whether the respondent nos.2 to 14 were necessary parties and were required to be heard was to be determined while deciding the appeal, but not on an application for condoning the delay. 8. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. It is not a case where the party to proceedings filed an appeal belatedly. The respondents moved an application in RC 12400/05/D2 for liberty to file an appeal by claiming to be necessary parties, as their right was affected by the orders passed in favour of the petitioners. 8. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. It is not a case where the party to proceedings filed an appeal belatedly. The respondents moved an application in RC 12400/05/D2 for liberty to file an appeal by claiming to be necessary parties, as their right was affected by the orders passed in favour of the petitioners. The limitation, therefore, in such a situation, was to be counted from the date of knowledge and not the date of order. 9. In any case, the impugned order, in the absence of respondent nos. 2 to 14 being a party, would not affect their rights and will result in multiplicity of proceedings, as their right to challenge the order cannot be taken away by rejecting their application for leave to appeal. 10. The respondent no.1 therefore has rightly exercised the power vested in him in condoning the delay on sufficient cause having been shown, which does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no.1 had given a opinion on merit, also cannot be accepted as the opinion was prima facie formed for dealing with the application. The respondent no.1 shall take a final decision with respect to rights of the parties while disposing of the main appeal in accordance with law on the basis of arguments and documents to be placed on record. The respondent no.1 shall not be influenced by the observation made in the impugned order, while passing orders on the main appeal. 12. With the above observation, the writ petition is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13. No costs.