Limitation cannot be decided against an appellant without hearing on disputed service and delay before dismissal as time-barred.

An appeal cannot be rejected as time-barred on the basis of a disputed postal acknowledgement without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard on limitation. Where the appellant denied the signature and asserted that the acknowledgement could not conclusively establish service or delay, the appellate authority was required to examine the limitation issue after hearing the parties. The order dismissing the appeal as barred by time was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration with adequate opportunity of hearing on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was rightly rejected as time-barred without giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing on the question of limitation.

Analysis: The appellate authority had rejected the appeal on limitation on the basis of a postal acknowledgement said to bear the appellant's signature. The appellant asserted that he was illiterate and unable to sign, and that the alleged acknowledgement could not be treated as conclusive without hearing him on the question whether the appeal had been filed within time. The available record showed that no opportunity had been given before dismissing the appeal as barred by time.

Conclusion: The order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was set aside and the matter was remanded to the appellate authority for fresh consideration after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant on the question of limitation.

---