JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to implead the concerned Gaon Sabha during the course of the day and serve a copy of the writ petition upon the learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Heard Sri P.K.Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.S.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri R.A.Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the caveator, Sri Rajesh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Sri M.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 3. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 20.3.2014 passed by respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 21 of 2013 (Sanjay and others v. Salik Ram and others) by which the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and the earlier interim order dated 22.8.2013 for maintaining status quo has been made operative till the pendency of the appeal. 4. The facts giving rise to the present case are that respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Sanjay and Rajmani have filed Suit No. 98/127 (Rajmani and others v. Muniraj and others) under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short the Act) before the Sub Divisional Officer Jaunpur. The aforesaid suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.6.2011 holding it to be not maintainable being barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. Against the aforesaid judgment a review application was filed which was allowed on 27.4.2012. Challenging this order a revision was filed which was numbered as Revision No. 111 of 2012 (Smt. Patti Devi and others v. Rajmani and others). The revision was allowed on 27.8.2013. 5. Thereafter the respondents have filed an appeal under Section 331 of the Act against the judgment and decree dated 20.6.2011. The appeal was barred by time, therefore, the respondents have filed an application for condonation of delay. It appears in the appeal without condoning the delay an order for maintaining status quo was passed by the Additional Commissioner on 22.8.2013. Challenging the aforesaid order a writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court which was numbered as Writ C No. 67250 of 2013 (Salik Ram and others v. State of U.P. and others). It appears in the appeal without condoning the delay an order for maintaining status quo was passed by the Additional Commissioner on 22.8.2013. Challenging the aforesaid order a writ petition was filed by the petitioner before this Court which was numbered as Writ C No. 67250 of 2013 (Salik Ram and others v. State of U.P. and others). The writ petition was disposed of with the following observation: “Even otherwise the suit itself is barred under Section 49 and therefore there would be no question of grant of any final relief much less an interim relief. (emphasis supplied) The petitioner will raise all these objections by way of an affidavit before the learned Additional Commissioner himself within 15 days from today and the learned Additional Commissioner shall consider these objections and proceed to pass orders by the next date fixed positively without fail. The writ petition is disposed of with the said observation.” 6. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10.12.2013 the petitioner has filed objection before the Court concerned and the Court concerned after condoning the delay has passed the impugned order in the writ petition. 7. When the writ petition was presented, this Court on 7.7.2014 has passed the following order: “It appears, against the order dated 22.8.2013 passed in appeal No. 21 of 2013 (Sanjai and others v. Salik Ram and others), directing the parties to maintain status quo, the petitioner approached this Court through Writ C No. 67250 of 2013 (Salik Ram and others v. State of U.P. and others) and on 10.12.2013, this Court has passed the following order: “Even otherwise the suit itself is barred under Section 49 and therefore there would be no question of grant of any final relief much less an interim relief. The petitioner will raise all these objections by way of an affidavit before the learned Additional Commissioner himself within 15 days from today and the learned Additional Commissioner shall consider these objections and proceed to pass orders by the next date fixed positively without fail." In turn, the petitioners approached the Additional Commissioner and filed their objections. Now, by the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner has confirmed the earlier order passed by him on 22.8.2013. Now, by the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner has confirmed the earlier order passed by him on 22.8.2013. I am surprised to note that when on previous occasion, the Court in the writ petition had taken note of this fact that in case the suit was barred by Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, there was no occasion to pass any interim relief, how the Additional Commissioner could confirm the earlier order maintaining status quo. The Additional Commissioner is directed to file his personal affidavit explaining the situation under which the earlier interim order has been made absolute till the disposal of the appeal. As prayed, put up this case on 21.7.2014 as fresh. On that date, learned Additional Commissioner (Judicial) 1st, Varanasi Division, Varanasi shall remain present before this Court along with the record to assist the learned standing counsel.” 8. Pursuant thereto necessary affidavit has been filed. I have gone through the affidavit filed by the respondents. 9. Sri C.S.Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel contends that in the judgment dated 10.12.2013 passed by this Court, the sentence beginning with, “Even otherwise the suit itself is barred under Section 49 and therefore there would be no question of grant of any final relief much less an interim relief”, was not an observation of the Court but it was the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner made before the Court and taking note of that this Court has directed the petitioner to file objection which was also directed to be considered. I am not satisfied with the stand taken by the learned standing counsel for the simple reason that the suit itself was dismissed as barred by Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and the appeal was also barred by time and the same was not competent. 10. The learned Additional Commissioner on the earlier occasion has granted an interim order for maintaining status quo without condoning the delay whereas the appeal was admittedly barred by time and in that eventuality this Court was approached through Writ C No. 67250 of 2013 and this Court taking note of the fact has observed that without there being any notice to the other side and without condonation of delay no interim order could be passed and in this regard the petitioner was required to file objection before the appellate Court. It was further observed that since the suit itself was barred under Section 49 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 there could be no occasion to grant any final relief much less an interim relief. 11. Now after the above order the learned Additional Commissioner has condoned the delay and maintained the earlier interim order. 12. So far as condonation of delay is concerned I do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner as it was positive exercise of discretion in view of the law down by the Apex Court in State of Bihar and others v. Kameshwar Singh and others, JT 2000(5) SC 389, wherein the Apex Court has observed as under : “.......... Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior Court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first Court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior Court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior Court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower Court.” 13. However, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Additional Commissioner has committed manifest error of law in continuing the earlier interim order which could not be granted as unless delay was condoned there could be no appeal in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Noharlal Verma v. District Coopeative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur, 2008 14 SCC 445 , wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “32. Now, limitation goes to the root of the matter. If a suit, appeal or application is barred by limitation a Court or an adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction, power or authority to entertain such suit, appeal or application and to decide it on merits. 14. Following the above judgment, this Court has also taken the similar view in Nagar Palika Parishad v. Raghuraj Singh Public Inter College and others, ( 2012 (8) ADJ 210 ). 14. Following the above judgment, this Court has also taken the similar view in Nagar Palika Parishad v. Raghuraj Singh Public Inter College and others, ( 2012 (8) ADJ 210 ). Otherwise also, even if it is assumed that it is a fresh interim order that could also not be passed in view of the earlier judgment of this Court rendered in Writ C No. 67250 of 2013. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the learned Additional Commissioner has not only mis-interpreted the judgment of this Court but also ignored the settled principle of law that unless delay is condoned there can be no appeal or revision, therefore no interim order could be passed in view of the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 3A(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that the Court shall not make an order for the stay of execution of the decree against which the appeal is proposed to be filed so long as the Court does not, after hearing under rule 11, decide to hear the appeal. 15. Therefore, no interim order could be passed as here the appeal was not heard under Rule 11, Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 16. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 20.3.2014 passed by respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 21 of 2013 (Sanjay and others v. Salik Ram and others) is quashed to the extent to which it has directed the continuance of the earlier interim order till the disposal of the appeal. 17. Since the delay has already been condoned, the learned Additional Commissioner is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously after hearing both the parties without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the learned counsel for the parties. —————