JUDGMENT A.N. Saigal, I.A.S., Chairman. - I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist. Opposite party is absent despite notice. 2. The learned additional Commissioner, Sri I.B. Khanuri, has dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. He has taken the view that the affidavit has not been correctly sworn. I have gone through the affidavit. It is a notorial affidavit. I do not find it to be incorrectly sworn at all. The person swearing the affidavit has been identified by the Notory himself. 3. Now the question arises whether the appeal was time-barred or not. Learned counsel for the revisionist says that he (the revisionist) as suffering from typhoid and that he had stated so in the affidavit should have been believed. Even if there were some irregularities, too technical a view should not have been taken. I therefore accept the affidavit. 4. On going through the file, I find that the khatauni in respect of plot no. 62 is not on the record. Therefore, no finding is possible as to whether the assertion of the revisionist that area from his plot had been taken out is correct or not. Consequently, I direct that the order of the learned Additional Commissioner be quashed and the case be remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer for disposal afresh according to law after recording specific finding whether there is any shortfall in the area of plot no. 62 and if there is any short-fall as to how his should be made good. Revisionist should be given 15 days time to file extract from the Khatauni. It follows that the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer confirming the demarcation is also set aside. The case is sent back to him with the direction that he should decide it a fresh after giving both parties an opportunity to lead evidence about the point concerning correction of map of plot no. 68-A and 68-B. The question of demarcation of these plots does not arise as they have not been so described in the map. If the applicant wants such demarcation he will have to get the map corrected firstly. The demarcation done on the site as done between plot nos. 62 and 63. While deciding the demarcation application the court should take this factor into account. The applicant (present opposite party) should clearly tell whether he wants demarcation of plot nos. If the applicant wants such demarcation he will have to get the map corrected firstly. The demarcation done on the site as done between plot nos. 62 and 63. While deciding the demarcation application the court should take this factor into account. The applicant (present opposite party) should clearly tell whether he wants demarcation of plot nos. 63-A and 63-B. If he wants so, the proceedings will have to be dropped and map got corrected first. Correction of map will not be necessary in case during normal Partal the settlement map has been corrected. If even that is not there, the map correction proceedings will have first to be resorted. 5. The revision petition is allowed accordingly and the case is remanded back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh decision in the light of the observations, as indicated above.