SHIVARAMA BHAT Vs. THIMMA POOJARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 21-4-1989 passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal of the petitioners. That appeal was filed against the order of the Land Tribunal dated 27-5-1988. The Appellate Authority noticed that earlier the petitioners had filed Appeal No. 8/89 challenging the very same order of the Land Tribunal. The said appeal was dismissed on 21-2-1989 on the ground of limitation.

(2.) IT was contended that the second appeal will not operate as res judicata. The said contention was negatived following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1966 SC 1332 Sheodan Singh v. Daryao Kunwar, wherein it has been held that dismissal of appeal on the ground of limitation amounts to final decision confirming the decision of the subordinate Court on merits. Hence, the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioners for the second time against the same order, is in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. No interference is warranted in this case.

(3.) THE contention that the first appeal filed producing the copy of the order sent by the Land Tribunal was not a valid appeal and the appeal filed for the second time along with certified copy of the order of the land tribunal is a valid appeal and therefore the Appellate Authority committed an error by dismissing the second appeal, is wholly untenable and deserves rejection. When the first appeal itself was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the appeal filed for the second time is in a worst position as the same was much more belated than the first appeal. Even assuming that the contention is correct, when the first appeal itself was dismissed on the ground of limitation, the second appeal also liable to be dismissed on the same ground. Thus, in any event the appeal filed for the second time deserves dismissal. Consequently, it makes no difference for the petitioners if the same is dismissed on the ground of res judicata or on the ground of limitation. In any event, having suffered an adverse order in the first appeal, the appeal filed for the second time is not maintainable and the same was bad in law. On this ground also the order under revision is legal and valid and no interference is warranted.