As per case facts, the Petitioner challenged an order by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) which condoned a substantial delay of seven years in an appeal filed by Respondent No. ... 4. The Petitioner asserted their long-standing ownership and protected tenancy rights over the disputed land, supported by various revenue records, a civil court decree, and a final mutation entry. Respondent No. 4 sought to challenge this mutation entry years later, claiming no prior knowledge, a contention the Petitioner disputes, citing Respondent No. 4's previous attempts at litigation and fabricated documents. The Petitioner appealed to the High Court to set aside the SDO's order, arguing it was arbitrary and without proper justification for condoning the significant delay. The question arose whether the SDO judiciously exercised its discretion in allowing an inordinate delay without sufficient cause, particularly when the Petitioner's rights were well-established. Finally, the High Court found that the SDO failed to provide adequate reasons for condoning the substantial delay and had not exercised its discretion judiciously. Consequently, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the SDO's impugned order.