JUDGMENT This is a petition field by the defendant before the trial Court and appellant before the lower appellate Court, feeling aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court dismissing his appeal as barred by time consequent to rejection of its application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was barred by time by about 17 days. The application filed u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act has been rejected by the impugned order. Without entering into merits of the averments made in the application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act, we are constrained to observe that the dismissal of the application by the appellate Court has been vitiated by material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The impugned order has been passed on 28.6.1991. Before that date, we have the law available laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Kabiji ( AIR 1987 SC 1353 ) exhaustively laying down the consideration which would prevail with the Court faced with a prayer for condonation of the delay in filing an appeal. Then we have the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ramesh Chand.Pathak v. Manikchand Jain & Ors. (1992-I-MPJR 271) and Single Bench decision in Biniyabai v. Sikanderkhan ( 1993 MPLJ 738 ) apart from host of several other decisions having binding efficacy on this Court. We have unhesitatingly formed opinion that if only the appellate Court would have kept in view the legal principles so laid down, in all probability its finding would not have been what it is. We are not inclined to re-appreciate the findings of fact and substitute our own in place of the appellate Court's findings, but nevertheless we are satisfied that this is a fit case where we must set aside the impugned order directing a re-hearing by the appellate Court. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied on the law laid down in Khalil Ahmed v. Tufelhussein Samasbhai ( AIR 1988 SC 184 ) and State of Gujrat v. Sayed Mohd. BakirEI Edrose ( AIR 1981 SC 1921 ) to submit that this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has brought on record a document (Annex. BakirEI Edrose ( AIR 1981 SC 1921 ) to submit that this Court ought not to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of limited supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution. Though the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has brought on record a document (Annex. R/1) to contend that the facts stated by the petitioner in the application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act were not correct but we have chosen not to consider the document Annex. R/1 at this stage because it was not filed before the Court below. Inasmuch as the matter is being sent back, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to seek its production on record before the lower appellate Court. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of the appellate Court dated 28.6.1991 (Annex. P/1) is set aside. The lower appellate Court is directed to restore Civil Appeal No. 146-N90 to its file and then hear and dispose of afresh the defendant/appellant's application u/s. 5 of the Limitation Act.