VIJAI SINGH Vs. JIVAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TO appreciate the objection as regards limitation raised by the respondent in this appeal it is necessary to examine the relevant facts first. Jivan Singh etc. plaintiffs, brought a suit against Vijai singh etc. defendants in the court of the Assistant Collector Jaitaran under item 28 Group B, Schedule I of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and jurisdiction) Act, 1951, on 10-8-51. The trial court decreed the suit on 29-5-1953. The defendant went up in appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who modified the decree of the trial court on 20-10-1953. it is significant to note hare that the lower appellate court drew up a decree in accordance with its judgment and the same is dated 20-10-53. Vijai Singh appellant filed a revision petition against this decree on 23-11-1953 in this Board which was presented by Shri Shivalal Porwal, advocate. 14-5-1954 was fixed in the case for hearing but as the applicant and his advocate did not turn up in spite of notice the revision was rejected. On 12-7-1954 the appellant's request for restoration was allowed and the case was fixed for hearing for 30-7-1954. On 20-7-54 Shri Dhonkal Singh, advocate, who was engaged by the appellant on 12r7-1954 applied that the revision petition was drawn up in ignorance of the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act and the same be treated as an appeal. On 31-7-1954 a copy of the decree of the lower appellate court was applied for which was delivered to him on 12-1-1954. It was, however, produced in the Board on 16-8-1954.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondents two objections have been raised. The first is that, as a second appeal lay to the Board, revision was incompetent and the appellant should not be allowed to treat this revision as an appeal. The second is that, even if this revision is converted into an appeal, it would be beyond limitation as the copy of the decree appealed against was filed much beyond the period of limitation. ON behalf of the appellant it has been prayed that the delay may be condoned under sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act.