JUDGMENT : SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. 1. The petitioner-corporation challenges the impugned order of the appellate tribunal on the premise that no valid yardsticks were adhered to by the tribunal while passing the impugned order and assessing the valuation of the concerned property. 2. Learned counsel for the opposite party controverts such argument by placing reliance on a judgment, reported at Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Sri. Rama Prasanna Mitra, (2016) 4 WBLR (Cal) 621 where a coordinate Bench of this Court held, inter-alia, that there was nothing in the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal in that case to show that the Kolkata Municipal Corporation submitted/produced sufficient materials before the Assessment Tribunal so as to hold that the annual valuation would have been much higher than what had been assessed by Municipal Assessment Tribunal. It was further recorded in the said cited judgment that the Assessment Tribunal consisted of a judicial member as well as one technical member, both of whom were unanimous and decided the annual valuation of the premises under reference on the basis of the materials on record. On such considerations, the learned Single Judge rejected the application challenging such valuation. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite party thus argues that, even in the present case, no materials worth the name were produced by the petitioner-corporation for the tribunal to come to a more detailed finding as to the assessment of valuation. The tribunal adjudicated the matter on whatever materials were available before it and could not be faulted for not being more specific. It is further submitted on behalf of the opposite party that even the petitioner-corporation did not support the order of the hearing officer and argued before the tribunal that the annual assessment of valuation ought to be different from that of the hearing officer. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party then submits that the present revisional application is palpably barred due to delay. The explanation provided in the revisional application is not sufficient for condoning such delay and entertaining the application. Accordingly, it is submitted that the revisional application ought also to be rejected on the ground of delay. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party then submits that the present revisional application is palpably barred due to delay. The explanation provided in the revisional application is not sufficient for condoning such delay and entertaining the application. Accordingly, it is submitted that the revisional application ought also to be rejected on the ground of delay. 5. In this context, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-corporation cites a judgment, reported at Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat vs. G. Arumugam (dead) by legal Representatives, (2015) 3 SCC 569 , where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held, inter- alia, that if the Court was convinced that there had been an attempt on the part of the government officials or public servants to defeat justice by causing delay, the court, in view of the larger public interest, should take a lenient view in such situations, condone the delay, howsoever huge may be the delay, and have the matter decided on merits. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner next cites an unreported judgment, delivered by a coordinate bench of this Court on December 18, 2017, where the learned Single Judge held, inter-alia, that for the sheer mendacity on the part of the tribunal in passing the order which had been brought to the notice of the said learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution, the delay, even deliberate delay on the part of the Corporation, was liable not to be taken into account. In the said case, it was further recorded that the private opposite parties had a judgment in hand to show that when adjustments had been resorted to, the Corporation could no longer challenge the order of a tribunal reducing the rates. 7. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the facts of the present case are different from the cited judgments. The physical proximity between the tribunal and the head-office of the petitioner as well as the flimsy explanation given in the revisional application would justify rejection of the same. It is also submitted that the present petitioner deliberately delayed the filing of the revisional application to frustrate the writ application filed by the opposite party to implement the order impugned in the appeal previously. 8. It is also submitted that the present petitioner deliberately delayed the filing of the revisional application to frustrate the writ application filed by the opposite party to implement the order impugned in the appeal previously. 8. A perusal of the judgment reported at (2016) 4 WBLR (Cal) 621 (supra) shows that no ratio was set out in stone therein as to this Court not having the power to interfere with the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal even in cases where the Corporation itself failed to produce sufficient materials before the said tribunal. In the cited case, it was also held that the Tribunal had decided the annual valuation on the basis of the materials on record. Such decision cannot be held to be a binding precedent in the context of this Court being powerless to interfere with the order passed by the tribunal without jurisdiction, even if the Corporation had failed to produce sufficient materials. 9. As regards limitation, the judgment of the coordinate bench of this Court was not a binding precedent as to the Court having to be liberal in case of public interest being involved, since the learned single Judge had passed the cited order in the facts of the said case and on certain other considerations also. 10. Although it is settled that ninety days, which is the limitation for filing a revisional application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was taken to be a reasonable period for the purpose of filing an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and beyond that period reasonable explanation had to be given for the delay, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cited by the petitioner, is binding on this Court in that regard. It was held, as cited above, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if the Court was convinced that the government officials or public servants had deliberately caused delay to defeat justice, in view of larger public interest, the court should take a lenient view to condone the delay and decide the matter on merits. 11. In such view of the matter, taking lenient view on the delay, the delay occasioned in filing the present revision is condoned. 11. In such view of the matter, taking lenient view on the delay, the delay occasioned in filing the present revision is condoned. As far as the merits of the matter go, it is evident that the Tribunal, while deciding the appeal, inter-alia, paid lip-service to the relevant yardsticks and did not actually advert to the specifics of the case in arriving at the assessment done by it. 12. As such, for the ends of justice, the matter ought to be directed to be re-heard by the Tribunal and the observations as to assessment have to be arrived at upon application of specific yardsticks on the facts of the case. 13. Accordingly, C.O. No. 3347 of 2018 is allowed, thereby setting aside the impugned order of the tribunal and directing the tribunal to re-hear the appeal upon granting both sides fresh opportunity to produce further materials to arrive at a correct assessment of the valuation of the property-in-question. However, the said exercise has to be completed within one month from the date of communication of this order to the tribunal. 14. It is further made clear that the above order is conditional upon payment of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only by the petitioner-corporation to the opposite party by way of cost to somewhat compensate the harassment caused to the opposite party. It will be open to the petitioner to conduct an internal enquiry into the matter and fix the responsibility for payment of such cost on the officers responsible for such delay, which, however, will not operate as an excuse for non-payment of the cost, which is made a precedent for allowing the revisional application. Such costs are to be peremptorily paid within a fortnight from this date. 15. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.