JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the order passed by respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. on 08.02.2024 holding that revision petition preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable in view of remedy of appeal available to him. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail appellate channel. The period spent by the petitioner in pursuing the revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), was also ordered to be excluded for the purpose of limitation. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Partition proceedings initiated under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Act) were pending before the Assistant Collector, First Grade, Dharamshala. Petitioner was also party thereto. The Assistant Collector, First Grade, passed an order therein on 17.06.2017 accepting the mode of partition and sanctioned the same. Present respondent No.4 (not a party to the aforesaid partition proceedings) assailed the aforesaid order by filing an appeal under Section 14 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Dharamshala. Alongwith an appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also moved. The said application was allowed on 07.11.2023 and the appeal was set down for hearing. Petitioner filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), H.P. assailing the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Collector. Revision petition was decided on 08.02.2024. The Financial Commissioner held that statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner against the order dated 07.11.2023. The petitioner could have availed remedy of appeal by filing the same before the Divisional Commissioner, Shimla Division, under Section 14 of the Act. The revision petition was accordingly disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the appellate remedy. The period spent while pursuing the revision was ordered to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. Petitioner felt aggrieved aggrieved and therefore, instituted this writ petition against the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. In terms of order passed in this writ petition on 22.04.2024, further proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Collector, Dharamshala, District Kangra have been stayed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on considering the facts as also the applicable provisions of law, I am of the considered view that the order passed by Financial Commissioner does not call for any interference. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on considering the facts as also the applicable provisions of law, I am of the considered view that the order passed by Financial Commissioner does not call for any interference. Section 14 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act provides remedy of appeal from original or appellate order of Revenue Officer as under:- 14. Appeals.- Save as otherwise provided by this Act, an appeal shall lie from original or appellate order of Revenue Officer as follows, namely:- (a) to the Collector when the order is made by n Assistant Collector of either grade; (b) to the Commissioner when the order is made by a Collector; (c) to the Financial Commissioner when the order is made by the Commissioner: Provided that- (i) when an original order is confirmed on first appeal, a further appeal shall not lie; (ii) when any such order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if any, to him shall be final: Provided further that any appeal relating to encroachment on Government land including forest land shall be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of filing thereof.” Section 14 of the Act provides remedy of appeal from the original as also the appellate order of Revenue Officer. In case the Revenue Officer is Collector, the appeal against his original or appellate order would lie to the Commissioner. First proviso to Section 14 of the Act clarifies that in case an original order gets confirmed on first appeal, the further appeal would not lie or in other words, second appeal against the original order is not permissible. In that scenario, remedy of revision may be resorted to as per law. Further, as per this proviso to Section 14, in case the original order is modified or reversed on appeal by the Collector, the order made by the Commissioner on further appeal, if any made to him, shall be final. In this case, the original order was passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade. Against the original order, present respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Collector. This was respondent No.4’s first appeal. The Collector passed an order on 07.11.2023 allowing the application moved by respondent No.4 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Main appeal is admittedly pending adjudication. In this case, the original order was passed by the Assistant Collector, First Grade. Against the original order, present respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Collector. This was respondent No.4’s first appeal. The Collector passed an order on 07.11.2023 allowing the application moved by respondent No.4 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Main appeal is admittedly pending adjudication. Argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforesaid order passed by the Collector was interlocutory, therefore, could not have been assailed in appeal. This contention to my mind does not hold good. Section 14 does not make any distinction between interlocutory or final order passed by the Revenue Officer. As per Section 14, appeal is permissible from original/appellate order. Further, the order allowing application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be termed as interlocutory. Had the application moved by respondent No.5 been dismissed, it would have given her right to file appeal. The order rightly or wrongly conclusively decided the issue of limitation between the parties. The proceedings under Section 5 of the Limitation Act stand terminated the moment an order is passed by the Competent Authority either condoning or refusing to condone the delay. In a case where condonation of delay is refused by the Authority, the application under Section 5 stands rejected, which, in effect, results in rejection of the main appeal, since the time-bar remains operative and the lis cannot be examined on merits. In contrast, where condonation of delay is allowed, although the proceedings under Section 5 come to an end, the substantive appeal survives and continues to be heard on merits. Refusing condonation ends the entire proceeding for the delayed appeal conclusively determining the party’s right to pursue it. Conversely, granting condonation equally conclusively establishes the party’s right to have its substantive appeal heard on merits. Thus, regardless of the outcome, such an order cannot be classified as a mere interlocutory order. The Financial Commissioner, therefore, correctly interpreted that petitioner had remedy of appeal against the aforesaid order before the Commissioner. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as the period spent by him in pursuing the revisional remedy has been ordered to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. 5. For the forgoing reason, the writ petition is dismissed. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as the period spent by him in pursuing the revisional remedy has been ordered to be excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. 5. For the forgoing reason, the writ petition is dismissed. However, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, period spent in pursuing this writ petition shall also stand excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.