C.D. Parekh, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been directed against an order dated 1 -7 -1968 passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Bansi dismissing the revision of the Petitioners Under Sec. 89 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act holding that it is barred by limitation.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Muneshwar son of Bijai resident of village Karnjahar filed a complaint before the Nyaya Panchayat at Suhai Kanpurwa, District Basti on 9 -10 -1967. The complaint was enquired into and as it appears from the order sheet a copy of which h as been enclosed as annexure 'B' to this writ petition, the Petitioner himself admitted that various dates were fixed and the proceedings that took before the Nyaya Panchayat has been recorded therein. On 29 -12 -1967 the Petitioners who were accused in the casa were convicted for an offence Under Sec. 379/406 IPC and they were fined Rs. 25/ - each and they were also made liable to pay Rs. 50/ - as compensation to the complainant. Against this judgment the Petitioners had preferred revision Under Sec. 89 of the Panchayat Raj Act before the Sub -Divisional Magistrate Bansi. The Sub -Divisional Magistrate by the impugned order, without going into the merit of the revision and without going into the merit of the application Under Sec. 29(2) which was filed along with the revision for, condoning the delay in filing the revision, decided the casa and held that the revision was barred by time. Against this order the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended before me that Under Sec. 89 of the UP Panchayat Raj Act an application may be made within 60 days from the data of the order complained of but if there be delay in filing the application and there are sufficient cause for not filing the application within time, an application Under Sub -section (2) of Sec. 29 of the Indian Limitation Act may be filed for condoning the delay. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the Sub -Divisional Magistrate was in error in not considering the application Under Sub -section (2) of Sec. 29 of the Indian Limitation Act.;