J. Sangma. J.- The respondent No. 4 in Civil Rule No. 3100 of 1993 has brought this appeal from the judgment dated 14.12.93 passed by the learned Single Judge (SN Phukan, J) allowing the writ petition of respondent No. 1. 2. Respondent No. 3 (the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector of Tinsukia) published tender notice for settlement of country liquor shops for the term 1993-96. The appellant, the respondent No .1 and some others submitted tenders for country liquor shop No. 4. The Deputy Commissioner cum-Collector by order dated 20.2.93, settled that liquor shop with respon­dent No. 1 (the writ petitioner). Against that settlement order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the respondent 1 o. 2 (the Assam Board of Revenue) after expiry of the period for appeal. The Board admitted the appeal on 13.5.93. Thereafter by a letter No. TEX. 160/93/9 dated 18th June, 1993, the Superintendent of Excise, Tinsukia informed the respondent No. 1 that the appellant before the Board never applied for certified copy of the settlement order dated 20.2.93 in respect of Makum Junction Country Liquor Shop No. 4 and that no copy was delivered to him. By letter No. TEX. 230/ 93 dated 29.7.93, the Deputy Commissioner also informed respondent No. 2 that the appellant never applied for certified copy of settlement order and, therefore, furnishing para wise comment an the appeal petition did not arise. A copy of this information dated 29.7.93 was forwarded to the Government Pleader for taking necessary action. In the wake of this information, respon­dent No. 1 raised preliminary objection to the Board's admission of the appeal, After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Board by order dated 14.12.93 repelled the objection and directed the Deputy Commissioner to send para-wise comment. In short, the Board's order was this : "The certified copy of the order appealed against, whether obtained by the appellant by applying for the same himself or otherwise, will suffice, provided it as a genuine one. Ask Deputy Commissioner to send para wise comment." 3. Respondent No. 1 then brought the said writ petition ^Civil Rule No. 3100 of 1993) for quashing the order dated 14.12.93 and also the appeal which was pending before the Board. On 19.10.93 this Court issued notice of motion. On appearance of the appellant, who was respondent in the writ petition, the notice of motion was heard before the Single Judge. 4. On 19.10.93 this Court issued notice of motion. On appearance of the appellant, who was respondent in the writ petition, the notice of motion was heard before the Single Judge. 4. Before the learned Single Judge, Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 argued by relying on two decisions : (i) Musst Majidan vs. Dalmir Khan, AIR 1951 Punjab 388; (ii) Union of India vs. M/s IG Tobacco, AIR 1966 MP 52 . The learned Single Judge did not accept his contention and held that these decisions did not apply. The learned Judge held that in view of Rule 211 of the Assam Excise Rules, 1945, it is necessary to prevent benami transaction in the settlement of country liquor shops. Thus, he held that the appellant must file a certified copy which was obtained by himself. Being of that view the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the Board's admission order and also quashed the appeal which was pending before it. 5. Mr. C. Baruah, learned counsel, who appeared for respondent No. 4 in Civil Rule No. 3100 of 1993 before the Single Judge also appeared for him before us in this appeal and reiterated his reliance on the same decisions, namely, AIR 1951 Punjab 388 and AIR 1966 MP 52 . In AIR 1951 Punjab 388, the learned Judge observed that copies were always applied for by Advocate's clerk; the applications were never signed by Advocate, pleader or the client or his authorised agent and held that a copy which had been obtained by a person other than the appellant and is then used by the appellant for the purpose of riling an appeal, does give right to the appellant under section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act to deduct the time taken in obtaining that copy. In AIR 1966 MP 52 , the respondent obtained the certified copies but it was allaged that the appellant fraudulently used those copies against the wishes of the respondent. The learned Judges however found that the respondent did not take steps for restoration of possession of those copies or other reliefs in proper time. So, the objection raised on behalf of the respondent at the stage of final hearing of the appeal was rejected. 6. Mr. KC Das. The learned Judges however found that the respondent did not take steps for restoration of possession of those copies or other reliefs in proper time. So, the objection raised on behalf of the respondent at the stage of final hearing of the appeal was rejected. 6. Mr. KC Das. learned counsel who appeared for the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge also appeared for him before us. He referred to Rule 211 and submitted that since the riling of appeal before the Board was out of time, it must be held that if the appellant filed certified copy, that copy must be obtained by himself, he cannot be allowed to get over the period of limitation by deducting the time taken for obtaining the copy which was not meant for him. To support this he placed Daisy Bez vs. Special Tehsildar, AIR 1983 Madras 274 wherein it was held : ''If appeals from common judgment are not preferred simultaneously on the same day, but on different dates, some after the expiry of period of limitation, time required for obtaining certified copy of judgment filed in some of the appeals cannot enure to the benefit of the party who has not filed copy of judgment and has preferred appeal after the period of limitation so as to bring his appeal within the period of limitation, There is a necessity to file an application to condone the delay." 7. Upon nearing the rival contention and the decisions placed by the learned counsel for either party we are clearly of the opinion that if the appe­llant who filed the appeal beyond time did not fraudulently obtain the certified copy which he filed for the purpose of getting over the period of limitation, the Board can accept it if that was obtained on his behalf but if that copy was obtained by other tenderer who did not get the settlement and did not prefer appeal, the appellant whose period for appeal was over could not be allowed to make use of that copy for getting over the period of limitation and thereby disturb the settlement of liquor shop which had become absolute as against him on expiry of the period for appeal. This is the matter which has to be examined by the Board. That point was still open for determination by the Board. This is the matter which has to be examined by the Board. That point was still open for determination by the Board. We, therefore, think that the writ petition in Civil Rule No. 3100 of 1993 brought by respondent No. l before this Court was premature. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 14.12.93 passed by the learned Single Judge. The Board (respondent No. 2) will now proceed on with the appeal before it and decide on the point indicated above. We make no order as to cost.