JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision under section 56 of the Stamp Act against the order of Collector (Stamp), Udaipur dated 18-12-1985. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant executed a lease deed in favour of the Mining Department and presented it before the Sub-Registrar for registration. 'Against order dated 18-12-1985 passed by Collector (Stamp), Udaipur The lease amount was Rs. 24,000/- but the Sub-Registrar realised stamp duty on a sum of Rs. 18,500/- only. The Collector (Stamp) therefore ordered that a sum of Rs. 493.75 as deficit stamp duty and an equal amount as penalty should be realised from the applicant. It is against this order that the revision has been filed. 2. The learned Additional Government Advocate has raised preliminary objection that the revision is barred by limitation because the order of Collector (Stamps) was passed on 8-12-1985 but the revision has been filed on 4-12-1986. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that no period of limitation is prescribed for revision under the Stamp Act and, therefore, the preliminary objection is not well founded. The learned counsel has relied on 1968 RRU 88 which was a revision in a case arising out of Rajasthan Municipal Act and it was held that no period is prescribed the revision. 3. I have given careful consideration to the preliminary objection. It is true that no period of limitation is prescribed for a revision under the Indian Stamp Act but that does not mean that the party can file a revision whenever it likes to do so. The powers of revision are discretionary and the court may refuse ro entertain the revision if the delay is not satisfactorily accounted for. In 1983 RRD 353 (L.B.) s h ch is a case of revision under the RT Act, the court has held that though there is no prescribed period of limitation yet the delay has to be satisfactorily explained. 4. In 1968 RRD 88 the reasons were sufficient because the applicant was aggrieved by an order of Collector dated 23-9-1963. The revision was filed in 1967. It was found that the applicant filed a revision against order dated 23-9-1963 before the RAA who allowed the revision but the non-applicant filed a revision before the Board which held on 9-2-1967 that the RAA had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. The revision was filed in 1967. It was found that the applicant filed a revision against order dated 23-9-1963 before the RAA who allowed the revision but the non-applicant filed a revision before the Board which held on 9-2-1967 that the RAA had no jurisdiction to entertain the revision. Thus the order passed by the RAA was set aside and the Collector's order dated 23-9-1963 stood confirmed Under these circumstances the applicant had to file a direct revision before the Board in 1967 against the order dated 23-9-1963. In these circumstances the Board condoned the delay and rejected the preliminary objection. The position in the case before me is also similar. The order against Narendra Singh was passed on 8-12-1985 and it was an ex-parte order. On 14-4-1986 he filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order which was rejected on 23-4-1986. Applicant Narendra Singh filed a revision against the rejection of his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The revision remained pending from 27-6-1986 to 6-5-1987 and was ultimately rejected. Under these circumstances the applicant filed the present revision on 4.12.1986. It is, therefore, clear that the applicant was not negligent and he was simply pursuing a wrong remedy per laps under mistaken legal advice given to him. Therefore in my opinion the reasons for the delay are sufficiently explained. The delay is, therefore, condoned and the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the State is over-ruled. 5. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the service on applicant Narendra Singh was not proper. The learned Collector (Stamps) issued a notice in which the place of residence was mentioned as Kosithal. There is an endorsement by the process server that the applicant was not present at Kosithal and had gone to Amet. The process server did not make any effort to serve the notice personally on the applicant and affixed a copy of the notice on the residential house of the applicant situated at village Kosithal. The endorsement does not mention that the family members of the applicant were residing in that house and that the process server offered the notice to any of them & they refused to accept the same. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was proper service on the applicant. The endorsement does not mention that the family members of the applicant were residing in that house and that the process server offered the notice to any of them & they refused to accept the same. It cannot, therefore, be said that there was proper service on the applicant. The same view has been taken in 1986 RRU 341 para 5.Revision Allowed. *******