Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114383 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37563 of 2024 Petitioner :- Mirza Isahaq (Since Deceased) And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 39 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shree Prakash Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Sri Shree Prakash Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Dinesh Kumar Verma, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents are present. 2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 18.12.1957 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi (respondent no. 2) in Appeal No. 16/9 of 1995 (Mirza Ishaq & another Vs. Muneshar & others) whereby the aforesaid appeal was dismissed. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State- respondents has strongly opposed the present petition on the question of inordinate delay in filing the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 18.12.1957. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 28.11.2024 which is available on record. The petitioners have explained the delay in filing the present writ petition in the following manner. Paragraph 2 of the aforesaid supplementary affidavit is extracted herein below: "That though, the petition no. 3 to 8 had neither knowledge nor they were parties to the proceedings litigated between their forefather and the contesting respondents but as the land belongs to their forefather therefore their interest is vested in the present matter. The petitioner no. 3 to 8 came to know through the villagers about the proceedings litigated by their forefather i.e. petitioner no. 1 and 2 and thereafter they rushed towards the court below and enquired about the matter and as such, the delay in filing the present petition was beyond the control of petitioner no. 3 to 8 which may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice." 5. The objection raised by the learned standing counsel is that neither the day-to-day delay in filing the present writ petition has been explained nor the definite source of information of the impugned order dated 18.12.1957 is disclosed by the petitioners in the said affidavit. 6. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Guruswamy & others Vs. A Krishnaiah, passed in Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, decided on 08.01.2025 has held that the concepts such as "liberal approach", "Justice oriented approach", "Substantial Justice" should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe as under: "16. The length of the delay is definitely a relevant matter which the court must take into consideration while considering whether the delay should be condoned or not. From the tenor of the approach of the respondents herein, it appears that they want to fix their own period of limitation for the purpose of instituting the proceedings for which law has prescribed a period of limitation. Once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. While considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time." 7. Since there is an inordinate delay of 68 years in filing the present writ petition without any cogent and satisfactory explanation for the same, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the said writ petition. 8. The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 Arif Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad