ORDER David Annoussamy, J. 1. This is a revision petition against an order of the District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, dated 15.2.1987 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner landlady in a Rent Control proceedings. 2. The petition by the landlady was for the removal of obstruction of the respondents herein. That petition was dismissed on 1-12-1986. The petitioner presented a copy Application No. 1878 on the same date. Stamps were called for on 17-12-1986. The last date for remitting stamps was fixed as 22.12.1986. Finding that stamps were not remitted by the party on the due date, the petition was stuck off. Thereafter the petitioner filed a petition on 23-1-1987 to restore his copy application with offer to pay the stamps called for. Notice of that application was given to the respondents. After hearing both the parties, the court observed that the explanation given by the petitioner was not satisfactory and then proceeded to reject the petition on the ground that allowing such a petition would tantamount to extending the period of limitation which the court was not entitled to do. 3. Aggrieved by the above' order, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. He placed before me a decision of this Court in Hari Prasad v. Chief Conservator of Forests in which it was held that a petition for restoration of a copy application is maintainable, that however the jurisdiction to restore to file an application for copy dismissed for default should be exercised bearing in mind the contemplated appeal. The question of condoning laches of the applicant will in such cases have to be dealt with by the application of principles analogous to those applied while dealing with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. A party to a proceeding is certainly entitled to get a certified copy of the order. Such a right can be defeated by this application being struck off for non-supply of stamps within time, of course. The Civil Rules of Practice, which apply to the facts of the case in view of Rule 24 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 do not make any provision either for filing a fresh petition or for restoration of the original petition. But, courts have held that the party concerned has the choice, between the two remedies. But, courts have held that the party concerned has the choice, between the two remedies. If the party files a fresh petition, when it goes on appeal the only the time taken to obtain a copy of order from the time of the second petition will be excluded as per Section 12 of the Limitation Act. If on the contrary the petition is revised the whole time from the filing of the petition till obtaining of the copy of the decree will get excluded as per the same provision. That is why the courts have held that if the party chooses to file an application for restoration of the copy application dismissed, notice should be given to the opposite party and the laches of the applicant have to be dealt with by applying the same principles as while dealing with any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 5. In this case, the District Munsif Court, though has given notice to the other party and even made some observations that the reasons put forth by the applicant were not satisfactory, has not rejected the application in giving a clear finding on that point but has turned to dismiss the application mainly in the belief that he has no authority or jurisdiction to allow the restoration of the copy application which would extend the period of limitation. In taking such a stand the court has certainly committed an error in law. Therefore the impugned order will have to be set aside. The District Munsif Court should consider afresh the restoration application after giving fresh notice to the respondent and ascertain whether the applicant has given sufficient reasons for the non-compliance in time of the order to remit copy stamps and also for the time taken to file the restoration application. Since such a restoration petition is not contemplated in law, no time is fixed statutorily but when a person wants his petition to be restored and in that way escape limitation, he will have to show to the court that he has filed his restoration application with due diligence. Since such a restoration petition is not contemplated in law, no time is fixed statutorily but when a person wants his petition to be restored and in that way escape limitation, he will have to show to the court that he has filed his restoration application with due diligence. This petition will have therefore to be remanded to the District Munsif Court, to decide whether the petition for restoration can be allowed after careful scrutiny of the explanations tendered for non-remittance of stamps within time and for the time taken to file the restoration petition and the objections raised by the opposite party. 6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the District Munsif Court is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the District Munsif Court, Kumbakonam, for fresh disposal in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.