ORDER 1. This revision has been filed against the order of the 5th Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Raipur, dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation. 2. The facts of the case are as under : - That the applicant has applied for sanction of map for construction to the Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Raipur. According to the applicant, her application for sanction was rejected on 5.2.90. She acquired knowledge of the order on 20.3.90. She applied for copy on 21.3.90 which was received by her on 6.9.90. After receiving the certified copy she filed the appeal under section 293 (3) of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, on 21.9.90 an affidavit before the appellate Court was also filed stating that the information about the order dated 5.2.90 was acquired on 20.3.90. The lower appellate Court held that the appeal ought to have been filed within 30 days from the date of the passing of the order. Since the appeal has not been filed within time it has been dismissed as barred by limitation. Section 293 para 3 provides: "Any person aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner in this behalf may appeal to the district Court within thirty days of such order in the manner prescribed therefor and the decision of the district Court shall be final." 3. The only question which is to be decided in this case is whether the appeal can be filed from the date of the order or from the date of the knowledge. 4. That there is another provision for filing an appeal before the district Court under section 149 of the Act. In this case also under section 149 the appeal is to be filed from the date of the order passed under section 148. 5. While considering the question of starting the point of limitation for the purpose of an appeal under section 149 in Smt. Manoramabai v. Nagar Palika Nigam, Gwalior (1972 MPLJ SN 124), this Court has held that starting point of limitation for purposes of appeal is the date on which the parties received the copy of the order. 6. In the present case, the order refusing the building sanction was passed behind the back of the applicant. It is also not clear from the record v. nether order of rejection has been passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. 6. In the present case, the order refusing the building sanction was passed behind the back of the applicant. It is also not clear from the record v. nether order of rejection has been passed by the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation. The file discloses that the proposal to reject the sanction has been passed by some officer but did not disclose the designation of the officer. Since the order was not communicated to the applicant and nothing has been shown by the Corporation before the lower appellate Court or this Court that the applicant was intimated about the date of the order. The applicant was not given any notice that order will be delivered on 5.2.90 therefore, starting point of limitation for the purposes of the appeal shall be from the date of knowledge and the certified C0Py received by the applicant. The applicant has stated that she acquired knowledge on 20.3.90 and certified copy was received by her on 6.9.90 this fact has not been disputed by the respondent, Municipal Corporation. In view of the facts of the case the period of computing limitation shall begin from 20.3.90 when she acquired knowledge of the order and the applicant is entitled for the benefit of copying days from 21.3.90 to 6.9.90. The appeal filed before the lower appellate Court on 21.9.90 is within the period of limitation. 7. The order of trial Court is therefore, set aside. The appeal filed by the applicant is within time. The case is remanded back to the lower appellate Court for deciding the appeal on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.