N.P. Gupta, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The registry has reported the appeal to be barred by 45 days. The appeal was filed on 010.2004. The report was made by the Registry, way-back on 110.2004. The application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alleges, that the Counsel for the petitioner before the learned trial Court did not intimate about the decision of the suit, and that it was on 05.09.2004, that the Rspondent No. 1 and 2 approached the Tehsildar for correction of the entries, and the Tehsildar informed the petitioner, and invited objections if any. It is then alleged that on 08.09.2004, the petitioner suffered from Peoria, and was advised to take rest from 08.09.2004 to 23.09.2004, it is mentioned that the certificate shall be kept ready for perusal of the Court. According to the application, then on 30.09.2004, the petitioner approached his Counsel, and sought necessary information about the decision of the suit. It is then alleged, that the record of the case is not available in the Court of Gulabpura, as the same is transferred to the record-room at Bhilwara. The petitioner applied for certified copy of the record on 010.2004, and the same w