KALU Vs. CHATURBHUJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against an order of the Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, dated 7.9.56,rejecting the applicants application for restoration of the appeal on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record of the case. The learned Additional Commissioner rightly held that under Art. 168 of the Indian Limitation Act a court has no power to entertain an application for restoration of the appeal di missed in default after the prescribed period of limitation; and that the provisions of sec. 5 of the Indian Act are not applicable to such applications. In the case before us the appeal was dismissed in default by the learned Additional Commissioner on 20.7.56 and an application for its restoration was presented before him on 4.9.56, i.e. after 15 days beyond the prescribed period of 30 days for filing such applications. The learned counsel for the applicants, however, urged that the court may be pleased to exercise its inherent powers to restore the appeal because the applicants on account of the death of some of their relations could not apply within the prescribed time for restoration of the appeal. This contention is without any force. In AIR 1943, Sindh, p.139, it has been held that where an application for readmission of an appeal which could have been filed under O. 41, R. 19 of the Civil Procedure Code is not filed within the period prescribed by Art. 168 of the Indian Limitation Act; a court cannot entertain an application for re - admission under its inherent powers. In AIR 1935 Rangoon, p.466 i? was also held that where a specific procedure is prescribed in the Code and the party neglects to avail himself of it, the inherent powers of the court cannot be invoked. The result is that the application stands dismissed, and the order given by the lower appellate court is up held.