HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CM(M) No. 133/2024 Mangu Ram …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate. Vs Additional Deputy Commissioner, Samba and Ors. .…. Respondent(s) Through: Ms. Sagira Jaffar, Advocate. Mr. Gagan Kohli, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 28.07.2026 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for assailing order dated 03.05.2024 whereby the appellate authority dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein on account of being barred by limitation. The order has been assailed primarily on the ground that once the appellate authority had condoned the delay in filing the appeal in terms of order dated 06.09.2022, the issue of limitation could not have been reopened and decided by the appellate authority afresh. 2. The contesting respondents have filed their reply stating therein that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was hit by the doctrine of delay and Serial No. 22 2 CM(M) No. 133/2024 latches and the same was filed after the lapse of 31years and while the mutation was attested in favour of the father of the petitioner, he was present alongwith the prominent person of the locality. The father of the petitioner during his lifetime did not raise any objection or challenge the mutation no. 336 attestation on 15.06.1988 and, as such, this petition is not maintainable. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. It is borne from the record that in terms of order dated 06.09.2022, the appellate authority after taking note of non-filing of the objections by the respondents in the appeal, condoned the delay and posted the matter on 25.10.2022 for arguments on merits. Thereafter, vide order dated 03.05.2024, the appellate authority rejected the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the ground of limitation. 5. Once the appellate authority had decided an application seeking condonation of delay by condoning the delay in filing the appeal, it was not open to the appellate authority to decide the application afresh and dismiss the application preferred by the petitioner for condoning the delay. 6. In view of the above, order dated 03.05.2024 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the matter is remitted to the appellate authority to consider the merits of the appeal 3 CM(M) No. 133/2024 preferred by the petitioner and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Disposed of . (RAJNESH OSWAL) JUDGE Jammu 28.07.2026 Neha-1 Whether the order is speaking:Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.