Condonation of delay is mandatory for a time-barred appeal; delayed filing without Section 5 relief is not maintainable.

An appeal filed after limitation without an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be entertained, because the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to treat the delay as condoned on its own. The view that delay could be deemed condoned was incorrect, and the High Court's interference with the orders of the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue was justified. The delayed appeal was therefore not maintainable in the absence of a formal request for condonation of delay.

---

---

Issues: Whether an appeal filed beyond limitation without an application for condonation of delay could be entertained, and whether the High Court was right in setting aside the orders of the appellate authority and the Board of Revenue.

Analysis: The appeal before the Additional Collector was filed 10 days late and no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed. In the absence of such an application, the appellate authority had no jurisdiction to allow the appeal. The view that delay could be deemed to have been condoned was erroneous. The High Court's interference with the orders of the Additional Collector and the Board of Revenue was therefore justified.

Conclusion: The delayed appeal was not maintainable without condonation of delay, and the High Court's judgment was upheld.

---