RESOLUTION Heard parties through their learned lawyers. 2. This is a petition in revision against the order dated 9-5-1969 of the learned Additional Collector, Patna dismissing, on the sole ground of limitation, the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 4-4-48 of the learned Sub-divisional Officer, Dinapur declining to review his ex-parte judgment dated 31-7-1967 in which he had allowed the application of the opposite party, Satyanarain Sah under Section 16(3) (i) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Surplus Land) Act, 1961. 3. The main point for determination is whether the learned Additional Collector, having by implication condoned the delay by admitting the appeal of the petitioner, was entitled to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it is barred by limitation. 4. Of the various rulings in this connection, it will be necessary to refer to only a few. In the ruling cited in (1) A.I.R. 1950 Madras 769, it has been held that when a Judge of the High Court sitting in the Admission Court excuses the delay in payment of the court fee on the memorandum of appeal without notice to the other- side, it is open to the other side to file an application to the High Court to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the delay ought not to have been excused. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras has also ruled (2) (A.I.R. 1958 Madras 312) that the delay should not have been excused without notice to the other party because, after the period of limitation, he acquired a valuable right and could not be deprived of that right without notice. It is open to the respondent to raise an objection to excuse of the delay on the ground of absence of notice even at the time of final hearing of the appeal. A Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Patna has also ruled (3) [A.I.R. 1955 NUC (Patna) 3257] that where a District Judge passes an order under Section 5 of the Limitation Act condoning the delay in filing the appeal without notice to one of the respondents, it is incumbent on the court to reconsider the matter if that respondent files an application before the court for that purpose. 5. 5. The above rulings support the dismissal of the appeal by the learned Additional Collector on the ground of limitation even though he had, by implication, condoned the delay at the stage of admission, without noticing the other party. 6. In the present case, three out of the four vendors had received notices issued by the Court of the learned Sub-divisional Officer. The endorsement of the registered notice to the petitioner also indicates that he and his family members were avoiding receipt of the notice. 7. Under these circumstances, the Board sees no reason to interfere with the order dated 7-5-1969 of the learned Additional Collector. The petition is accordingly rejected. Petition rejected.