ORDER This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed as against the order passed by the appellate authority dismissing the appeal simply on the ground that there is a delay, in that the appeal was not filed within two months from the date of the order impugned. 2. In this appeal, the only question that arises for consideration before this Court is that Section 5 of the Limitation Act will be applicable in this case as laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Indira Devi v. Inspector General of Registration and Others, 2005 (1) CTC 733 . In the said decision, the Division Bench has held that the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 did not exclude the applicability of Limitation Act and, hence, Section 5 is applicable. The Division Bench held thus: “7. In addition to this, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, inasmuch as there is no specific exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the Rules, we are of the view that taking note of the fact that copy of the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 28.11.2002 has been served/received by the appellant only on 17.12.2002 and the appeal filed by the appellant on 10.2.2003 before the first respondent is well within time. The first respondent has committed an error in dismissing the appeal stating that the same is barred by limitation. The impugned order of the first respondent dated 10.3.2003 is set aside. The first respondent is directed to hear the appeal on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned.” 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. In view of the dictum laid down by this Court referred to above, I am of the view that the appeal ought to have been entertained and disposed of on merits after considering the reason for the delay, which had been mentioned in the petition along with the appeal. The impugned order has been passed on 20.2.2003; the appellate authority rejected the appeal on 13.7.2004. Now two years have elapsed. The impugned order has been passed on 20.2.2003; the appellate authority rejected the appeal on 13.7.2004. Now two years have elapsed. So, instead of directing the petitioner to file an application for condoning the delay, it would be appropriate for this Court to condone the delay, since in my view, satisfactory explanation has been given by the petitioner in the petition itself, which was filed along with the appeal. 4. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and this appeal is allowed. The appellate authority is directed to entertain the appeal and consider the case on merits after hearing the parties and the appeal shall be disposed of within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is also allowed.