ORDER : 1. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, vide order dated 14.08.2018, dismissed Revision Petition No. 193/2017 preferred by the petitioner and her husband-the proforma respondent herein. Proforma respondent-Inder Singh has not chosen to assail the order dated 14.08.2018 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh. In the instant writ petition, questioning the order dated 14.08.2018, preferred by his wife, the proforma respondent was served on 23.09.2019. Despite the service of notice upon him, he has not made any appearance in these proceedings. This writ petition was admitted on 01.09.2020. Subsequently, proforma respondent’s wife, i.e. present writ petitioner, has not taken any steps till date for effecting post-admission service of petition upon her husband-the proforma respondent. In these facts and circumstances, considering that interest of proforma respondent is common with that of the petitioner, the fact that he himself has not chosen to contest the impugned order and despite notice of the writ petition at pre-admission stage, has not appeared, the writ petition is taken up for hearing at this stage. 2. An application moved by respondents No. 4 and 5 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954 was allowed by the Collector, Sub-Division Sundernagar, District Mandi vide order dated 16.07.2014. This order was affirmed in appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division on 17.08.2016. Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner and proforma respondent against this order was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh on 14.08.2018. Aggrieved against condoning the delay in filing the appeal preferred by respondents No. 4 and 5, the petitioner has come up in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that all the Revenue Courts below committed illegality and material irregularity in condoning the delay in institution of appeal by respondents No. 4 and 5. That no explanation, much less cogent one, was offered by respondents No. 4 and 5 for condoning the delay of more than 12 years in institution of the appeal. The application filed by respondents No. 4 and 5 seeking condonation of delay was bereft of material particulars. That no explanation, much less cogent one, was offered by respondents No. 4 and 5 for condoning the delay of more than 12 years in institution of the appeal. The application filed by respondents No. 4 and 5 seeking condonation of delay was bereft of material particulars. Inviting attention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Majji Sannemma @ Sanyasirao vs. Reddy Sridevi and Others, AIR 2022 SC 332 (Civil Appeal No. 7696 of 2021) it was contended that instant was a case of gross negligence and want of due diligence on the part of respondents No. 4 and 5 in preferring the appeal, which was barred by more than 12 years. Hence, the delay ought not to have been condoned. Learned counsel also submitted that while condoning the delay, the Revenue Courts have also embarked upon the merits of the matter, which was impermissible. Learned counsel prayed for setting aside all the orders passed by the Revenue Courts. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 and 5 defended the orders passed by the Revenue Courts condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It was also submitted that the appeal on merits is yet to be argued before the learned Collector, Sub-Division Sundernagar, therefore, no prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the petitioner under the impugned orders. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. This is on account of following reasons: (i) Petitioner-Sabrina and proforma respondent-Inder Singh are husband and wife. It is the case of the petitioner that respondents No. 4 and 5, i.e. Pawan Kumar aged 24 years at that time and Champa Devi, executed a General Power of Attorney (in short ‘GPA’) in favour of the proforma respondent-Inder Singh on 01.09.2000, authorizing him to sell/mortgage/exchange/enter into any agreement with any party on their behalf with regard to their owned land comprised in Khewat No. 87, Khatouni No. 118, Khasra No. 678/570/2, measuring 3-7-2 bighas, situated in Mohal Thala/35, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. Twenty days after the execution of GPA in favour of proforma respondent, his wife (present petitioner) moved an application in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar for recording her possession on the aforesaid land. Twenty days after the execution of GPA in favour of proforma respondent, his wife (present petitioner) moved an application in the Court of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar for recording her possession on the aforesaid land. Notice of this application moved by the petitioner on 21.09.2000 was not sent to the land owners, i.e. respondents No. 4 and 5. Rather, petitioner’s husband (proforma respondent) appeared in the Court of the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar as GPA of respondents No. 4 and 5. He acknowledged his wife’s (petitioner) claim over the land. On that basis, the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar allowed the application moved by the petitioner on 30.09.2000. (ii) The order passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar on 30.09.2000, allowing the application moved by the petitioner, was challenged by respondents No. 4 and 5 by filing an appeal before the Collector, Sub-Division Sundernagar under Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act. This appeal was filed on 06.03.2013. Alongwith the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved, seeking condonation of delay of a little over 12 years, which had occurred in the institution of the appeal. The ground mentioned in the application was that the applicants (respondents No. 4 and 5 herein) became aware of the order dated 30.09.2000 only on 06.02.2013, when they visited the Patwar Khana of the concerned Mohal, hence, their appeal was within limitation from the date of knowledge of the order. (iii) Learned Collector, Sub-Division Sundernagar, while allowing the application for condonation of delay in terms of his order dated 16.07.2014, returned a factual finding that no summons were ever served upon respondents No. 4 and 5 on the application moved by the petitioner on 21.09.2000. That the summon was though issued in the name of respondent No. 4, but it was never served upon him, rather, it was received by his GPA, i.e. Inder Singh, husband of the applicant (petitioner herein). This factual finding has been affirmed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division in his order dated 17.08.2016. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh has also maintained this factual position in his order dated 14.08.2018 passed in Revision Petition No. 193/2017. This factual finding has been affirmed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division in his order dated 17.08.2016. The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh has also maintained this factual position in his order dated 14.08.2018 passed in Revision Petition No. 193/2017. (iv) During hearing of the instant writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that service of summons on petitioner’s application dated 21.09.2000 moved before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar, was never effected upon respondents No. 4 and 5. That respondents No. 4 and 5 were never served in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for recording her possession over the land of respondents No. 4 and 5. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the summons meant for respondents No. 4 and 5 were actually received by petitioner’s husband (Inder Singh) and that it was Inder Singh, who had appeared in the proceedings initiated by his wife (petitioner). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents No. 4 and 5 had been made aware of the order dated 30.09.2000 by the proforma respondent. It was also contended that it cannot be believed that respondents No. 4 and 5 remained unaware about passing of the order dated 30.09.2000 for twelve years. It was also argued that the proforma respondent-Inder Singh was duly authorized to receive summons on behalf of respondents No. 4 and 5 as he was their lawful GPA. Attention in this regard was invited to Section 21(1) of the H.P. Land Revenue Act, which reads as under: “(1) A summons issued by a Revenue Officer shall if practicable, be served (a) personally, on the person to whom it is addressed or failing him (b) his recognised agent.” A perusal of the above extracted provision of Section 21 clearly reflects that in the first instance, service is to be attempted upon the person, who is directly involved in the litigation. It is only in the event that service cannot be effected upon him that the service is to be attempted upon his recognised agent. In the instant case, service of notice/summons of the application was never attempted upon respondents No. 4 and 5. In fact, memo of parties prepared by the petitioner in her application dated 21.09.2000 shows that respondents No. 4 and 5 were sued by her through their GPA-Inder Singh (petitioner’s husband). In the instant case, service of notice/summons of the application was never attempted upon respondents No. 4 and 5. In fact, memo of parties prepared by the petitioner in her application dated 21.09.2000 shows that respondents No. 4 and 5 were sued by her through their GPA-Inder Singh (petitioner’s husband). Perhaps, in view of defective memo of parties, summons were neither sent to nor were ever received by respondents No. 4 and 5. Service of notice of the application moved by the petitioner, in these circumstances, upon her husband-Inder Singh as the GPA of respondents No. 4 and 5, cannot be deemed to be valid service upon respondents No. 4 and 5. It cannot be presumed that respondents No. 4 and 5 were aware of order dated 30.09.2000. (v) As already observed earlier, the petitioner and proforma respondent are wife and husband. On 21.09.2000, the petitioner moved an application for correction in the revenue entries for recording her possession over the land owned by respondents No. 4 and 5. Nine days later, i.e. on 30.09.2000, her application was allowed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar. The land recorded in the ownership and possession of respondents No. 4 and 5, in terms of this order, was ordered to be recorded in the possession of the petitioner. (vi) In the application moved for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against order dated 30.09.2000 passed by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar, respondents No. 4 and 5 had averred that they were not aware about the passing of order dated 30.09.2000 by the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Sundernagar prior to 06.02.2013. Reply filed by the petitioner and proforma respondent to this application does not dispute this fact. In substance, the defence taken in the reply is that service of application upon the GPA of respondents No. 4 and 5 in respect of the subject matter in dispute, is as good as service upon respondents No. 4 and 5. As already observed, this contention reiterated by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Respondents No. 4 and 5 were liable to be served in the first instance and it is only in the event of failure to serve them with the notice that service by other modes including service upon their GPA should have been resorted to. As already observed, this contention reiterated by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Respondents No. 4 and 5 were liable to be served in the first instance and it is only in the event of failure to serve them with the notice that service by other modes including service upon their GPA should have been resorted to. Present is not a case, where there is lack of diligence on part of respondents No. 4 and 5 in preferring the appeal against order dated 30.09.2000. There is also no question of holding respondents No. 4 and 5 guilty of any negligence when the record demonstrates that they were neither served with nor were they aware of pendency of the application moved by the petitioner. It has also been mentioned in the reply filed to Section 5 application that respondents No. 4 and 5 had been made aware of the order dated 30.09.2000. In the facts of the case, as discussed earlier, respondents No. 4 and 5 cannot be said to be aware of order dated 30.09.2000. Therefore, the concurrent orders passed by the three Revenue Courts below, condoning the delay in filing the appeal by respondents No. 4 and 5, are just, proper and in consonance with the facts and applicable legal position. Under the impugned orders concurrently passed by the Collector, Sub-Division Sundernagar on 16.07.2014, by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division on 17.08.2016 and by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh on 14.08.2018, it is only the application for condonation of delay, which has been allowed. The matter on merits is still to be adjudicated upon by the Collector, Sub-Division Sundernagar. By allowing the application for condonation of delay, in the given facts and circumstances, no illegality or material irregularity can be said to have been caused to the petitioner or to the proforma respondent. No prejudice has been caused to them by condoning the delay, in the interest of justice, in moving the appeal by respondents No. 4 and 5. 5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 6. No prejudice has been caused to them by condoning the delay, in the interest of justice, in moving the appeal by respondents No. 4 and 5. 5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous applications, if any. 6. It is clarified that the observations made in the impugned orders as well as in this order shall remain confined only to the adjudication of the application for condonation of the delay and will have no effect on the merits of the matter. Learned Collector, Sub-Division Sundernagar, shall decide the appeal on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Collector, Sub-Division Sundernagar, District Mandi on 16.08.2022.