Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-cum-Inspector General of Registration, 2nd respondent herein, rejecting the appeal, on the ground that the appeal has not been filed, within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 2. Assailing the correctness of the order, M/s S. Udhayakumar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an employee of BSNL, Government of India Enterprises and that he was transferred from Chennai to Surat in Gujarat State, in the month of September 2004. At the time of transfer, the appellant wrote a letter to the Sub-Registrar, Registration Department, Pellamedu, Coimbatore, intimating his new address and also requested him that, in case of any communication, he may be addressed to the place in Gujarat. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that during the relevant period, Samadhan Scheme was in existence, but the communication said to have been sent by the 3rd respondent to the old address was not received by the appellant and therefore he could not opportunity to avail the benefit of the scheme. 4. Thereafter, when the appellant was transferred to Chennai in the year 2007, he came to know that an adverse order has been passed against him and hence he made an appeal to the first respondent on 212. 2007, that is well within the period of two months from the date of knowledge, as provided in Section 47 -(A)(5) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that though the appeal has been filed within the statutory period of two months, as provided Under Section 47-(A)(5) of the Act, the second respondent without considering the same on merits, has rejected the same on the technical ground of delay. 6. In order toascertain as to whether the order dated 30.11.2005 of the District Revenue Officer (Stamps), Coimbatore, first respondent, has been served, as per the mode of service provided under the statutory rules, the learned Additional Government Pleader was directed to verify the same. On this day, he submitted that the above said order has been sent on I.G.S, but the files produced before this court does not reflect proper service on the appellant. 7. Heard, the learned counsel for both parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. On this day, he submitted that the above said order has been sent on I.G.S, but the files produced before this court does not reflect proper service on the appellant. 7. Heard, the learned counsel for both parties and perused the materials available on record. 8. The final notice in RC.No.Mu.Pa.3995/C/04, dated 13. 2008, by which, an intimation is said to have been sent, directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,87,871/-with interest, within a stipulated time, is also not in accordance with the mode of service, as provided under Rule 15 of the Prevention Of Undervaluation Of Instruments Rules, which reads as follows:- Rule 15: Manner of service of notice and orders to the parties:-Any notice under rule 4 or order under rule 4 or 7 shall be served in the following manner, namely:- .(a) in the case of any company, society or association of individuals, whether incorporated or not, be served- .(i) on the secretary or any director or other principal officer of the company, society or association of individuals, as the case may be; or .(ii) by leaving it or sending it by registered post acknowledgement due addressed to the company, society or association of individuals as the case may be at the registered office, or if there is no registered office, then at the place where the company, society or association of individuals as the case may be, carries on business. .(b) in the case of any firm, be served- .(i) upon any one or more of the partners; or .(ii) at the principal place at which the partnership business is carried on, upon any person having control or management of the partnership business at the time of service. .(c) in the case of a family, be served upon the person in management of such family or of the property of such family, in the manner specified in clause (d). .(c) in the case of a family, be served upon the person in management of such family or of the property of such family, in the manner specified in clause (d). .(d) in the case of an individual person, be served- .(i) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to the person concerned or his counsel or authorised agent; or .(ii) by delivering or tendering the notice or order to some adult member of the family; or (iii) by sending the notice or order to the person concerned by registered post acknowledgement due; or (iv) if none of the aforesaid modes of service is practicable, by affixing the notice or order in some conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or business of the person concerned. When the rule specifically mandates that notice should be served to the person concerned, by registered post, with acknowledgement due, the notice sent on I.G.S. does not satisfy the requirement. Besides, there is no proof of acknowledgement also. In the above backdrop, the decisions of this court in R. Ramakrishnan and another Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and others reported in 2004 (3) MLJ 280 and D. Devaraj Vs. The Inspector General of Registration-cum-Tamil Nadu Chief Revenue Controlling Authority reported in 2005(1) L.W. 576 (DB), holding that the appeal presented within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, has to be decided on merits, are squarely applicable to the facts of this case. 8. For the reasons stated, the impugned order, rejecting the appeal, on the ground of delay, is set aside. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority -cum- Inspector General of Registration -cum-Chief Revenue Authority, second respondent, herein is directed to entertain the appeal on merits and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. No costs.