Lahiri, J.:- This application can be disposed of on a simple ground that the Assam Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction vested in it by law to hear and dispose of the appeal in violation of Rule 11 of the Assam Settlement of Fishery Rules, 1953. The Settlement was made on 26.8.80. The appeal was filed on 25.12.80. Admittedly it was beyond the period of limitation of 30 days prescribed in Rule 11 of the Rules. Rule 11 runs thus : - "11. Appeal against the order of the confirming authority.- All appeals against the orders of the settling authority passed under those Rules shall lie to the Assam Board of Revenue. Appeals must be preferred within thirty days of the date of such order." (Emphasis added) Therefore, Rule 11 prescribes a period of thirty days for preferr­ing an appeal against the order of settlement of a fishery. The expression "such orders" means order of settlement of fisheries. Respondent No. 3, Md. Ibrahim Ali, who was appellant before the learned Board of Revenue applied for a copy of the order on 30.9.80 and obtained it on 12.12.80. Admittedly, the applica­tion for copy of the settlement order was filed beyond the period of 30 days from the date of the settlement. There was no application for condonation of the delay nor was there any application under Rule 5 of the Assam Board of Revenue Regula­tion, 1963. These are admitted facts which stare on the face of the records. Under these circumstances, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 has fairly conceded that the learned Board of Revenue acted without its jurisdiction to entertain the appeal beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 11. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads : "3. Bar of Limitation.-(1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence." (Emphasis added) 2. It is the prime duty of an authority governed by the Limitation Act to consider as to whether the appeal has been filed within the period of Limitation. If it finds that it has been beyond the period of limitation, it cannot entertain and dispose of the appeal on merits. It is the prime duty of an authority governed by the Limitation Act to consider as to whether the appeal has been filed within the period of Limitation. If it finds that it has been beyond the period of limitation, it cannot entertain and dispose of the appeal on merits. It is statutorily obliged to dismiss the appeal "although limitation has not been set up as a defence". However, in the instant case the petitioner set up the plea of limitation as a defence specifically in para 11 of his reply before the learned Board of Revenue which we extract below (vide page 16 of the Board's records) :- "11. That the settlement order being dated 26.8.80 it is respectfully submitted that the appeal is barred by limitation and on this ground alone the appeal is liable to be dismissed". Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the concessions made by Mr. Ahmed, we hold that the appeal was barred by limitation, which was liable to be dismissed by the learned Board of Revenue. We hold that the Board had no jurisdiction to entertain and dispose the time "barred appeal. Accordingly, we quash the impugned judgment and order of the learned Board of Revenue. 3. Before parting, we express with regret that in the ins­tant appeal an exception has been made by the learned Board of Revenue as it departed from its age old practice to allow a stranger to prefer an appeal before it. Respondent No. 3 was not a tenderer. The proceedings before the Assam Board of Revenue on appeal is an adversary system of proceeding and not inquisitorial system of proceeding. If persons other than the tenderers like respondent No. 3, are permitted to prefer appeals, flood gate of litigations will be open, multiplicity of litigation would cause hardship to the tenderers. The flood of proceedings would drown the cause of justice public would injuriously suffer from the impact of litigations. The settlements shall remain in vacua and in unsettled conditions "pendent elite". That apart, appeal is a right which must be granted to a party expressly or by necessary implications. Has the right of appeal been granted to a person other than the tenderers ? Rule 11. in our opinion, does not provide such right to persons other than those who contest the settlement by filling their tenders. That apart, appeal is a right which must be granted to a party expressly or by necessary implications. Has the right of appeal been granted to a person other than the tenderers ? Rule 11. in our opinion, does not provide such right to persons other than those who contest the settlement by filling their tenders. However, we do not express any final opinion but make an obiter observation that we have strong doubts as to whether a stranger has locus standi to prefer such an appeal. 4. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the impugned order cannot stand. The order dated 31.3.81 passed by the learned Board of Revenue is quashed. Naturally the order of settlement dated 26.8.80 is restored. The Rule is made absolute. However there will be no order as to costs.