Pranab Kumar Deb ( 1 ) THE instant application has been filed against the order dated 7th september, 2005 passed by the appellate Court in S. C. 195/a/2002. ( 2 ) FOLLOWING the passing of the ex parte decree by the District Consumer forum, an appeal was preferred. The appeal was, however, dismissed on the ground that it was not filed within the prescribed period. ( 3 ) REFERRING to the ruling of Housing Board, Hyderabad v. Housing board Colony Welfare Association and Ors. , reported in (1995)5 SCC 672 , the learned lawyer for the petitioner has submitted that date of pronouncement of the order in open Court by itself cannot be the starting point for determining the period of limitation under Section 15 of the Act. It has to be shown that the order of the District Forum so pronounced, was duly signed and dated by the members of the District Forum constitution the Bench and the same was communicated to the parties, free of charge. It is contended that since the order of the District Forum was not communicated, the appeal could not be preferred earlier. The appeal was actually filed within the stipulated period of thirty days of obtaining the copy of the order of the District Forum as contended by Mr. Basu, the learned Advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner in his affidavit also challenged having any knowledge about the initiation of proceedings. On his making such assertion, the lower Court records were called for. The lower court records revealed that the petitioner duly appeared before the District Forum and sought for time to file written statement. The lower Court records thus falsified the claim of the petitioner that he had no knowledge about the initiation of proceedings. ( 4 ) IT was contended by the respondent that the order of the District forum was communicated to the petitioner. It was also communicated to the petitioner by the complainant by sending a letter by Registered Post with A/d. The A/d card was placed before the appellate forum. The A/d card thus indicates that the letter was duly communicated to the petitioner. It cannot be said that the order of the District Forum was never communicated to the petitioner. The appeal was filed after the lapse of 419 days. The A/d card thus indicates that the letter was duly communicated to the petitioner. It cannot be said that the order of the District Forum was never communicated to the petitioner. The appeal was filed after the lapse of 419 days. The petitioner not having convinced the appellate forum as to the delay of presenting the appeal, the same was rejected. There was no application for condonation of delay. In rejecting the application, the appellate forum considered all the documents placed before it. ( 5 ) I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the aforesaid order. The order dated 7th September, 2005 in S. C. 195/a/2002 thus does not call for any interference. In the result, the revisional application fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs. .