RAJE UDAJIRAM Vs. RAJESHWAR TRIMBAKRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. This judgment also disposes of First Appeal No. 4-B of 1925.

(2.) ON 23rd June 1922, treating these two appeals as civil revisions, I gave the facts of the case. Then, on the 9th January 1925, for reasons given, disposing of an application for review, I held that the application must succeed as both the applications should not have been admitted as revisions because an appeal lay from the amendment of the decree. I, therefore, set aside my order of the 23rd June 1922 and directed that both the revisions may now be treated as appeals and stamped accordingly, and that, on their being so stamped, they would be heard. I have now heard the appeals. The arguments that were advanced at the hearing of the revisions have been repeated, and the only question is whether the order of the lower Court, making the amendment, is tenable or not.

(3.) AGAIN , in my opinion, the case does not come under Section 151. It has been held in Balmukund Marwari v. Basanta Kumari Dasi A.I.R. 1925 Pat. 1 that limitation in an application under this section is governed by Article 181, Schedule 1, Lim. Act, which lays down three years. But it is immaterial to go into the question of limitation, as I am of opinion that Section 151 does not apply.