NOORBHAI JAMALBHAI Vs. AMBALAL CHUNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Application had originally come for condonation of delay before Sheth J. on 9th August 1968 and my learned brother refused to condone the delay and to that extent it was rejected with costs. The petitioner however was given liberty to show that the C.R.A. was in time and that is how it has been argued before me.

(2.) Mr. S. H. Sheth vehemently argued that even though under the amended appellate side rules under rule 17 limitation prescribed in 90 days from the date of the decree or order sought to be revised the said provision is wholly ultra vires for the simple reason that it curtails the limitation which is now provided by the Limitation Act 1963 for such residuary applications under Art. 137. The said contention is founded on the assumption that such a revision application did not fall under Article 131 because the residuary Article 137 would apply to any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere. If therefor the present revision application is governed by Article 131 which also prescribed a period of 90 days the said rule 17 could not be contended to be ultra vires.

(3.) Article 131 provides that for an application to any Court for the exercise of its powers of revision under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 ..........the limitation is 90 days from the date of the decree or order sought to be revised. Mr. Sheth argued that the present revision is under sec 29(2) of the Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act. Sec. 29(2) provides that no other appeal shall lie against any decision in appeal under sub-sec. (1) but the High Court may for the purpose of satisfying itself that any such decision in appeal is according to law call for the case in which such decision was taken and pass such orders with respect thereto as it thinks fit. This amendment was Introduced by the Legislature by Gujarat Act No. 18 of 1965. Before the amendment the revision under the Act was governed only by the provision in sec. 115 of the C.P. Code as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Abbasbhai v. Gulamnabi A.I.R. 1964 S.C.1341 revision was therefore confined under the Code only to cases of jurisdictional control. That jurisdiction is now widened under the present sec. 29(23. In view of this change Mr. Sheth argued that now the revision application is not under the Code hut under sec. 29(2). Even though right to avail of these wider powers of revision is now conferred by sec. 29(2) the procedure which the High Court follows in dealing with such revision applications remains the same. Mr. Sheth confuses the two questions as to grounds on which a revision lies and the procedure regarding the entertainment and disposal of revision applications. The amendment has changed the grounds on which the revisional jurisdiction can be now exercised by widening the scope of such revision; but it has not affected the procedure which is the one contemplated by the Code alone even after the present amendment.