RATAN LAL Vs. RAJUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Collector, Bharatpur, dated 24 -9 1963, whereby he reversed the orders of the Tehsildar Nadbai dated 11 -6 -1963 in a case under sec. 251 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, relating to the apportionment of the share of water from a well between the parties.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised by the counsel for the non -petitioners on the ground of limitation. It was stated that under Article 131 of the Indian Limitation Act, the period of limitation for an application to be made to a court for the exercise of its powers of revision under the Code of Civil Procedure is 90 days, and that, as the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act are applicable to suits, appeals, applications and proceedings under and in pursuance of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under sec. 214 (3) of the aforesaid Act, the present revision application, which was filed on 4 - 2 -1964, is barred by time as it was filed 4 months and 12 days after the pronouncement of the impugned order. Allowing six days for the obtaining of the copy and 90 days for revision, it was filed one month and 6 days after the period of limitation, and no satisfactory explanation has been advanced by the petitioner nor has any application under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act been attached as required under Rule 17 (d) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual, Part I.

(3.) On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioner argued that Article 131 of the Limitation Act which applies to only revisions filed under the Code of Civil Procedure and Cr.P.C. would not be attracted in this case. This argument, however, cannot be accepted for a moment in view of the express provisions of law contained in sec. 214 (3) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The only exceptions are provided in sub -sec. (1) and (2). Sub -sec. (1) lays down that the suits and applications specified in the Third Schedule shall be instituted and made within the time prescribed therein for them. In the Third Schedule there is no mention of revision petitions. The other provisions contained in sub -sec. (1) and (2) are not relevant to the point under issue. The learned counsel for the petitioner, then, sought the protection of sec. 30 (b) of the Limitation Act. This provision certainly comes to his aid. According to this section, any appeal or application for which the period of limitation is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, may be preferred or made within a period of 90 days next after the commencement of this Act, or within the period prescribed for such appeal or application by the Indian Limitation Act, whichever period expires earlier. It is obvious that this liberal treatment has been extended to cover lapses likely to occur during the period of interregnum with the coming into effect of the amending law, seeking to curtail the period of limitation. It was felt desirable to introduce this provision as it was realised that sudden curtailment would cause undue hardship and might in some cases extinguish the rights previously available, thereby leading to inequity and injustice. Now, under the law prevailing before the commencement of this Act, there was no statutory period of limitation for filing of revisions. This has now been reduced to 90 days. As the period of limitation now prescribed is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, the petitioner is certainly entitled to the benefit of this section and this application for revision is, therefore, maintainable.