ORDER 1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.9.2014 (Annexure P/14) passed by the Board of Revenue whereby the Revision preferred by him has been dismissed as barred by time. 2. The record indicates that against an order dated 5.1.2013 passed by the Additional Tehsildar, Tehsil Indore and a letter dated 3.1.2013 sent to the Revenue Inspector for demarcation, the petitioner preferred a Revision under section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 before the Board of Revenue. Since the same was barred by time an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also preferred for condonation of delay in filing the same. The Board of Revenue has held that no sufficient reason has been furnished by the petitioner for condonation of delay and consequently the application has been rejected as a result of which the Revision itself has been dismissed as barred by time. 3. It is observed that the revision was preferred with a delay of 49 days. In the application for condonation of delay it was stated by the petitioner that no notice of the proceedings had been issued to him by the Tehsildar or the Revenue Inspector hence he was not aware of the demarcation proceedings. Though he had filed an objection therein on 14.1.2013 but it took time for him to obtain the certified copies of the proceedings and immediately upon receiving them the Revision has been preferred. 4. From a perusal of the application for condonation of delay filed by the petitioner, it is evident that he had furnished sufficient reason for the delay in preferring the Revision. The delay was not so inordinate that the same ought not to have been condoned. The petitioner had furnished sufficient reason for the delay in preferring the Revision. The Board of Revenue has taken a very strict view of the matter and has gone on technicalities in rejecting the application of the petitioner. In doing so it has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. 5. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 11.9.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The delay in preferring of the Revision by the petitioner before it is condoned and the Board is directed to decide the Revision preferred by the petitioner on merits. 5. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 11.9.2014 passed by the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The delay in preferring of the Revision by the petitioner before it is condoned and the Board is directed to decide the Revision preferred by the petitioner on merits. 6. Let the same be done within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the parties. Since the parties are represented before this Court they are directed to appear before the Board of Revenue on 30.9.2024 for which no fresh notices would be required to be issued.