MEHAR CHAND Vs. TWARSOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order of the Sub-Divisional Judge, Mandi. The facts, in brief, leading to the filing of the petition, are as follows :

(2.) Respondent No. 1 had lodged a complaint, for various offences, against the petitioners, in the Nyaya Panchayat, Jitpur. Petitioner No. 2 had, also, lodged a cross-complaint in the same Nyaya Panchayat. The Nyaya Panchayat decided the complaint of respondent No. 1 and convicted the petitioners, sentencing them to pay fine. The cross-complaint, filed by petitioner No. 2, was still pending. The petitioners filed an application, for revision, under Section 93 oi' the Himachal Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as the Himachal Act) before the Sub-Divisional Judge, against their conviction, by the Nyaya Panchayat. The Sub- Divisional Judge rejected the application, as barred by time, having been filed beyond the period of sixty days, prescribed, under Section 93. It was contended, before the Sub-Divisional Judge, on behalf of the petitioners, that the time, spent, in obtaining the copy of the order of the Nyaya Panchayat, should be excluded, under Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation. Act, and that if that time be deducted, the application was within time. The Sub-Divisional Judge did not accept this contention. He held that, in view of the provisions of Section 85(4) of the Himachal Act, the Indian Limitation Act was not applicable to an application for revision, against the order of a Nyaya Panchayat, and that the time, spent, in obtaining the copy of the order of the Nyaya Panchayat could not be excluded. The petitioners have filed the present petition, questioning the validity of the order of the Sub-Divisional Judge, dismissing their application for revision, as time-barred.

(3.) It is not disputed, that if the time, spent In obtaining the copy of the order of the Nyaya Panchayat, be excluded, the application for revision, filed by the petitioners, was within time. The crucial point, which requires decision, in the petition, is whether the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1008, which was in force at the relevant time, were applicable to the application for revision, filed by the petitioners, and the time, spent in obtaining the copy of, the order of the Nyaya Panchayat could be excluded, in computing the period of limitation of sixty days, prescribed by Section 93 of the Himachal Act. The contention, on behalf of the respondents, is that those provisions were not applicable and that time, spent in obtaining the copy of the order of the Nyaya Panchayat, could not be excluded. Reliance has been placed, in support of this contention, on Sub-section (4) of Section 85 of the Himachal Act. That sub-section reads as follows : "The Nyaya Panchayat shall follow the procedure prescribed by or under this Act. The Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, shall not apply to any suit, case or probeeding in a Nyaya Panchayat except as provided in this Act or as may be prescribed."