JUDGMENT The revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.91 of the Xth Add\. District Judge, Indore passed in Appeal No. 77/91 whereby the applicant's application for condonation of delay has been rejected and the appeal has been dismissed in consequence thereof as barred by time. The brief history of the case is that Municipal Corporation issued notice to applicant for assessment of the tax of the house occupied by her and thereafter an order was passed on 26.5.90 by fixing a tax as Rs. 540/- per year. The appeal against the said order was filed and an application was filed with the assertions that the appellant (applicant here) had no notice of the judgment and the order of assessment. That application for condonation of delay was resisted and the same has been dismissed and consequently the appeal has also been dismissed taking it to be time barred. This revision is directed against the said order. On perusal of record of the Municipal Corporation it appears that the case was first taken-up on 15.3.90 and one Ku. Hemlata Gupta appeared on behalf of the applicant. The case was thereafter adjourned to 4.4.90. Nobody appeared that day. As such a notice under Postal Certificate was directed to be issued and the case was fixed for 26.5.90. On that day one Sabbir Hussain claiming himself to be the brother of Miss. Rajiya Sultana appeared. He has signed on the order-sheet and thereafter the order of assessment was passed. It is not clear as to whether Shabbir holds any power of attorney on behalf of applicant Miss Razia Sultana. Definitely he was not an advocate and therefore his appearance cannot be taken to be as appearance of the party. The order-sheet does not contain the signature of Miss Razia Sultana. The notice for assessment also does not contain signature of applicant and, therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant had notice of order or notice of assessment. The application U/s. 5 of Limitation Act filed by Miss. Razia Sultana ought to have been appreciated in this light and since she has filed an application supported by affidavit showing that she had not received any application in May, 1990 and therefore in the absence of any evidence of rebuttal that ought to have been accepted. Learned A.D.J. committed error in not accepting the application U/s. 5 of Limitation Act. Learned A.D.J. committed error in not accepting the application U/s. 5 of Limitation Act. In view of the discussion above the delay deserves to be condoned. As a result of the impugned order so far as this appeal No. 77/91 is concerned is set-aside. The delay is condoned and it is taken that the appeal was within time. The file is remanded back to the A.D.J. for deciding the case on merit. The parties shall appear before the First appellate Court on 22nd Nov. 93. No further notice would be required.