BADDUNISA BEGUM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated the 20th March, 1965 whereby he held the appeal filed by the petitioner to be beyond limitation. The proceedings started with an appeal against the order of the Tehsildar Pidawa dated 14. 5. 61 allotting land to Ratanalal respondent. The appeal was dismissed by the Collector Jhalawar on 29. 6. 63 whereupon the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue on 9. 8. 63 which was also dismissed on 10. 2. 64 with the observation that the revision had been wrongly filed before this court. While rejecting the revision petition the learned Member directed the petitioner to file a regular appeal before the appropriate court according to law. Following this the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Revenue Appellate Authority on 13. 2. 64 along with an application for condoning the delay. As stated above, the same was held to be beyond limitation and rejected by the learned Revenue Appellate Authority.

(2.) THE only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the revision was filed by the petitioner within limitation on the advice of a lawyer and as such there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is urged that the time spent in revision should have been taken into account by the appellate court and the petitioner should have been given the benefit of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the rule laid down in Kesharbhai Jesingbhai vs. Bai Lilavati (AIR 1963 Gujarat p. 119 ). This authority seeks to enunciate the law governing sec. 5 of the Limitation Act and lays down as follows - "the true guide for the Court in the exercise of its discretion under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act is whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in prosecuting his appeal, and the appellant ought oridinarily be deemed to have acted with reasonable diligence, if the whole period between the date of the decree or order appealed against and the date of presenting the appeal does not, after excluding the time spent in prosecuting with due diligence and in good faith another proceeding in a wrong tribunal or before a wrong forum, exceed the period prescribed by law for presenting the appeal. THE time spent in prosecuting with due diligence and in good faith another proceeding in a wrong tribunal or before a wrong forum would be liable to be excluded on the analogy of the principle embodied in sec. 14 of the Limitation Act and if after excluding such time the appeal is within the period of limitation, that would constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. "