Judgment : R. Balasubramanian, J. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the above appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. In the appeal, the order dated 31.3.2005 passed by the second respondent is in challenge. In the impugned order, the statutory appeal filed under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamps Act, stands rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that along with the appeal before the second respondent, an application supported by an affidavit to condone the delay of 50 days was also filed. However, according to him, the second respondent never exercises such a power to condone the delay on the premises that he has no power. 3. The learned Additional Government Pleader defending the respondents would submit that the delay is not 50 days, but it is more than six months. He would submit that the proceedings of the first respondent is dated 20.9.2004 and the appeal before the second respondent came to be filed against the said order only on 23.3.2005. 4. A Division Bench of this Court in the judgment Indira Devi v. Inspector General of Registration , 2005 (1) CTC 733 , dealing with a similar situation had held that since the provisions of the Limitation Act is not excluded in matters relating to filing of an appeal, Section 5 of the Limitation Act gets attracted. Having that law laid down by this Court, we perused the entire papers placed before us. Having regard to the nature of the order passed by the first respondent, which is challenged before the second respondent, viz., demanding difference in payment of stamp duty payable on the ground of under valuation we are of the firm opinion that ends of justice definitely requires the delay in filing the appeal, whether it is 50 days or six months, to be condone. We find from the materials placed on record that the appellant had satisfactorily explained the delay. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Now costs. The second respondent is directed to take up the appeal on file and dispose it of in accordance with law. CMP No. 7257 of 2005 is closed.