HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This appeal has been preferred against order of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Kota dated 17.4.65. It is unnecessary to go in details of the facts of the case because it can be disposed of on the preliminary point of limitation. Chanda plaintiff, appellant here, filed a suit u/s 183 Rajasthan Tenancy Act against Nonda defendant, respondent here, before the Assistant Collector, Ramganj Mandi which was dismissed. An appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority Kota met with no success and hence this second appeal.
(2.) We have heard counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
(3.) Counsel for respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal is time barred. He pointed out that the appeal has been presented 120 days after the Revenue Appellate Authority had pronounced its judgment. This had been done on 17.4.65 in the presence of counsel for the parties and the appeal had been presented in the Board of Revenue on 16.8.65. Admittedly the limitation prescribed is 90 days. Counsel for the respondent argued that application for copy of the judgment had been presented before the Revenue Appellate Authority on 14.6.65 and this copy had been given on 28 6 -65. Counsel for the respondent argued further that these 14 days could be excluded from the period of limitation but not the time spent in obtaining copy of trial courts order. Consequently, after exclusion of the period spent in obtaining copy of order of Revenue Appellate Authority the appeal had been presented after 106 days had lapsed since the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority bad been pronounced and so this was barred by limitation. Counsel for appellant cited A.I.R. 1923 Lahore 461 (Chuharmal vs. Beera Ram), A.I.R. 39 Himachal Pradesh 9 (Parasram vs. Devidas) & A.I.R. 1918 Allahabad 389(Narain Singh Sahai vs. Sheo Prasad). Counsel for appellant replied that copies of the judgment of both the first appellate court and trial court were essential and mandatory before the appeal could be filed. This was laid down under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual. He stated that he had applied in the court of the Revenue Appellate Authority for copies of his own judgment as well as that of the trial court but had been given copy of the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority only and since then he had procured a copy of the judgment of the trial court also and the time obtained in securing this should be excluded from the period of computation. He had applied for copy of the judgment of the S.D.O. Ramganj Mandi on 15.7.65 received it on 13.8.65 and excluding this period as well as the time spent in obtaining copy 6f the judgment of the Revenue Appellate Authority the appeal was within time. Counsel for appellant cited 1965 RRD page 17 (Sohanlal Chaju -lal vs. Bolia) & 1964 RRD page 338 (Balmukand vs. Board of Revenue).;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.