ORDER 1. With the consent, finally heard. 2. Challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is made to the order of Board of Revenue dated 16.4.2018 (Annx.P-3) whereby the learned Board has given stamp of approval to the order of SDO dated 6.10.2017 (Annx.P-2). 3. The parties are at loggerheads on the question whether the appeal preferred by the respondents before the SDO was barred by time or not. Admittedly, the present petitioners while filing the objection before the SDO on 3.10.2017 contended that the appeal is barred by time. It is filed with delay of two months and seven days (67 days). Alongwith the appeal, no application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed. 4. Shri Sengar submits that without considering the said objection which goes to root of the matter, interim order dated 6.10.2017 is passed by the SDO. 5. Aggrieved, petitioner filed revision before the Board of Revenue wherein the question of delay was specifically raised. Neither the SDO nor the learned Board has considered the question/ objection of delay raised by the petitioner, therefore, both the orders are vulnerable. 6. Shri A.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent has taken pains to substantiate that there was no delay in his appeal filed before the SDO. 7. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, when a specific objection regarding delay in filing the appeal was raised by the present petitioners, the learned SDO should have decided the said aspect before passing the interim order dated 6.10.2017. Similarly, the Board was required to apply its mind on the specific objection of delay raised in para-4 of the revision memo. The decision making process adopted by the Board of Revenue is clearly bad in law inasmuch as, the basic objection regarding delay is not gone into. I am not inclined to entertain the argument raised by the respondent and count the days to ascertain whether the appeal was within limitation or not. This court is not undertaking the exercise of judicial review as a court of first instance and it is for the appellate or revisional court to decide whether the objection of limitation has any substance or not. The Board of Revenue has failed to consider the aforesaid objection and, therefore, the order dated 16.4.2018 has become vulnerable. 9. This court is not undertaking the exercise of judicial review as a court of first instance and it is for the appellate or revisional court to decide whether the objection of limitation has any substance or not. The Board of Revenue has failed to consider the aforesaid objection and, therefore, the order dated 16.4.2018 has become vulnerable. 9. Resultantly, the said order is set aside. The matter is remitted back before the Board of Revenue with a direction to re-hear the parties and decide the revision afresh by taking into account the observation made hereinabove. It is expected that the Board of Revenue will decide the revision afresh within 45 days from the date of production of copy of this order. Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits of the case.