JUDGMENT 1. Notices issued to the respondents but not represented. 2. Heard. 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenge is made to the order passed by the Board of Revenue in its revisional jurisdiction under section 50 of MPLRC. 4. Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 5.6.2014 has allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents therein and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 19.9.2013 condoning the delay. Board of Revenue has allowed the appeal on the premise that the discretion exercised by Sub-Divisional Officer in the matter of condonation of delay was not justified. It is submitted that law is well settled as regards consideration of application for condonation of delay. The superior authority normally does not to interfere with the discretion exercised unless the same is found to be perverse or de hors the record or the same has not been exercised with judicial mind. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner took this Court through the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer condoning the delay to submit that the discretion exercised by Sub-Divisional Officer was a conscious consideration of the material placed on record in support of condonation and said order has been passed judiciously. The Board of Revenue while commenting upon the aforesaid order has in fact adopted hyper technical approach and has not given justifiable reasons in the context laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, reported in (1998)7 SCC 123 wherein Supreme Court has interfered with the discretion exercised by the High Court in the matter of condonation of delay. For ready reference para-9 is quoted below : “9. It is axiomatic and condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercise only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the Court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion 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. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the discretion exercised by the Sub-Divisional Officer while condoning the delay to entertain the appeal on merits against the ex parte order passed by the Tahsildar was properly exercised discretion and same is not liable to be interfered, hence the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue is set aside. Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to proceed with the appeal with due notices to all parties. 7. With the aforesaid observation petition stands disposed of.