Judgment : This appeal is focused as against the order of the third respondent dated 110. 2007, passed in Proceedings No.MU.MU.No.45394/N4/07. 2. Heard both sides. At the time of admission, both sides agreed to argue the matter on merits. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for disposal. 3. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition would run thus: The appellant herein filed a petition dated 06.09.2007, praying the Inspector General of Registration to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to entertain the appeal, which was filed as against the order dated 28.03.2007 directing him to pay additional stamp duty. The appellate authority in the cryptic Order dated 110. 2007, dismissed the appeal and an excerpt from the order is extracted hereunder: 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is focussed on the main ground that the appellate authority was not justified in dismissing the appeal in such a manner as stated supra without considering the records already enclosed along with the appeal and that his expectation for separate application for condone the delay is not tenable. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any infirmity in the order passed by the third respondent in Proceedings No.MU.MU.No.45394/N4/07, dated 110. 2007? 6. Point: The perusal of the records and the hearing the arguments would clearly highlight that the appellate authority did not state that it had no powers to condone the delay and what the appellate authority highlighted was to the effect that necessary documents were not enclosed and separate petition stating the reasons for condoning the delay was not filed. There is some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that even though there is no specific provision to get the delay condoned, the appellate authority had inherent power to condone the delay in matters of this nature, without a specific petition nonetheless there will be no harm in filing separate application as expected by the appellate authority. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that filing of a separate petition for getting the delay condoned enclosing necessary documents as expected by the appellate authority would not in any way prejudice the petitioner. 7. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that filing of a separate petition for getting the delay condoned enclosing necessary documents as expected by the appellate authority would not in any way prejudice the petitioner. 7. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of with the following direction: The petitioner is given an opportunity to file necessary application to get the delay condoned by enclosing necessary documents within one months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order taking the earlier date of appeal as cut of date to compute the number of days delay in filing appeal and thereupon the appellate authority shall consider it on merits as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.