JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Shri K. C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel as well as Shri Rajiva Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the opposite party no.2/Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the opposite party no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow. 3. Facts in brief of the present case are that land which belongs to petitioners' father/late Sri Data Ram was auctioned for recovery of irrigation charges. Thereafter, on 15.09.1992 he filed objection under Section 285-I of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act in the Court of Commissioner Lucknow Division, Lucknow challenging the validity of the auction sale. In the year 1993, he expired. 4. By order dated 18.10.1994, the said objection was dismissed in default. On 23.04.2003, Deputy Collector confirmed the auction sale and opposite party no.4 interferred with possession of the petitioners over the land in dispute and informed that the sale certificate has been issued in his favour. 5. Later on, on 5.11.2004 an application for recall of the order dated 18.10.1994 has been moved by the petitioners/legal heirs of the late Sri Data Ram along with an application for condonation of delay as well as an application for substitution in order to be substituted them as legal heirs. 6. By order dated 09.07.2010, opposite party no.2/Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow dismissed the application for recall of the order dated 18.10.1994 on the ground that petitioners have not given satisfactory reason for moving application for condonation of delay. Thereafter, revision was filed by the petitioners, dismissed by order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the opposite party no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners while challenging the impugned orders submits that the same is contravention to the principles of natural justice as petitioners' land has been auctioned and if the matter was dismissed on technical ground then in that circumstances, they cannot put forward their case on merit and will suffer irreparable loss and injury. So as per principles of natural justice, the impugned order is contrary to law. 8. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by Apex Court in the case of Manoharan vs. Sivarajan and others 2014 (122) RD 285. 9. So as per principles of natural justice, the impugned order is contrary to law. 8. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment given by Apex Court in the case of Manoharan vs. Sivarajan and others 2014 (122) RD 285. 9. Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order dated 09.07.2010 passed by opposite party no.2/Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow may be set aside. 10. Shri Rajiva Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the present case, there is wrong delay for moving the application for recall of the order dated 18.10.1994. 11. He further submits that it is wrongly stated by the petitioners that they are minor when theirs father/late sri Data Ram expired in the year 1993. So taking into consideration the said fact, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders under challenge in the present writ petition and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 13. As per admitted facts of the case, land of the petitioners' father/late Sri Data Ram was auctioned and against the same, he filed an objection under Section 285-I of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act on 15.09.1992. In the year 1993, Sri Data Ram expired. When the matter which was taken up on 18.10.1994 was dismissed in default. Later on, on 5.11.2004, petitioners moved an application for recall of the said order as well as an application for substitution, rejected by the impugned order. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Manoharan (supra) held as under : - "When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 14. In Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab (1995)6 SCC 614 this Court under the peculiar circumstances of the case condoned the delay in approaching this Court of about 31 years. 14. In Nand Kishore v. State of Punjab (1995)6 SCC 614 this Court under the peculiar circumstances of the case condoned the delay in approaching this Court of about 31 years. In N.Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 2008(228)ELT 162(SC) this Court held that the purpose of Limitation Act was not to destroy the rights. It is founded on public policy fixing a life span for the legal remedy for the general welfare. The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate disputes between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. The object of providing legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. If the explanation given does not smack mala fides or is not shown to have been put forth as a part of a dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. In this context it was observed in 2008(228) ELT 162(SC) : “It is axiomatic that 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 exercised 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 uncontainable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. 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." 15. 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." 15. Thus, keeping in view the law as laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Manoharan (supra) as well as settled principles of law that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the way should be given to substantial justice. Further, primary function of a Court is to adjudicate and decide the matter between the parties on merit in order to settle their grievances and impugned order is liable to be set aside. 16. Further, if there is no mala fide intention by a person who has moved an application for recall by which his case was dismissed in default after expiry of the limitation period and also there is no dilatory strategy, the Court must show utmost consideration to recall of the order. The said position does not exist in the present case. 17. Thus, length of delay cannot be a ground for giving the way to substantial justice because it is settled proposition of law that person should be given an opportunity to put forward his case, the same should be decided on merit. In the instant matter, as stated above, land of the petitioners was auctioned and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forward his grievances as objection filed on merit under Section 285-I of U. P. Z. A. & L. R. Act, so impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 09.07.2010 passed by the opposite party no.2/Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and order dated 25.08.2010 passed by the opposite party no.1/Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the opposite party no.2 to decide the same on merit. The said exercise shall be done by the said authority within a period of four months from today.