Gur Sharan Lal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been referred to a Division Bench because of a conflict between two Single Judge decisions of this Court men tion in the order of reference of Satish Chan dra,
(2.) THE writ petition itself was filed to get quashed an order of Munsif Kasganj in which he held a revision filed before him under Section 89 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act to be time barred. The revision had been filed beyond the period of sixty days provided in the said Section 89 for a party to apply to have an order of the Nyaya Panchayat revised. The contention of the applicant in revision was that he was en titled to exclude the period spent in ob taining a copy of the order of the Nyaya Panchayat sought to be revised. The learned Munsiff held that no such exclusion could be made as the provision in Section 12 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act which permits the exclusion of time taken in obtaining a copy of the order sought to be revised is inapplicable to the case. In Ram Singh v. Panchayati Adalat,1 uiugu v. rancnayati Adalat, AIR 1954 All 252, a Single Judge of this Court had taken the view that Section 12 (2), as it then was, was applicable and the ap plicant was entitled to the deduction of the time spent in obtaining a copy of the order of the Panchayati Adalat. On the other hand in Chivdeni Rai v. Bans Narain Rai, AIR 1954 All 391 another single Judge of this Court held that on account of the pro visions of Section 83 of the U. P. Pancha yat Raj Act the Limitation Act was wholly inapplicable to the proceedings in a case of a Nyaya' Panchayat and it was, therefore, doubtful if Section 12 (2) of the Limitation Act applied to such proceedings. It may be mentioned at this stage that Section 12 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act which was in force at the time the above two decisions were given did not cover a revision and therefore even if Section 12 (2) had applied to proceedings in Nyaya Pan chayat cases, the time spent in ob taining a copy of the judgment of a Nyaya Panchayat for getting the judgment or order revised could not be excluded in computing the period of Limitation laid down in the section for filing a revision. In the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 the case of a revision has also been included in the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 12. Before proceeding to discuss the main point in controversy it may be stated that the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party pointed out the fact that though ear lier there was a provision in the rules framed under the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act for a copy of an order sought to be revised being filed along with an application for revision, the provision has since been deleted and stood deleted at the time relevant for the purposes of this case. We, however, do not see any significance in the said deletion so far as the question of exclusion of time under Section 12, (2) of the Limitation Act is concerned. Section 12 (2) does not make the exclusion of time required for obtaining a copy of the order sought to be revised dependent upon any requirement of such a copy being filed along with an application for revision. On the other hand it is ab solute in its terms. The matter has been subject of consi deration by the Supreme Court in S. A. Gaffoor v. Ayesha Begum, reported in 1970 UJ (SC) 784 and it was held by the Supreme Court that time required for obtaining a certified copy which was not required to be special jurisdiction on sub-divisional Magis-filed with the memorandum of appeal was trate in connection with a class of criminal to be excluded in computing the period of cases Munsiffs in respect of a class of civil limitation. This settles the point raised before us.
(3.) SECTION 29 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act reads:- "(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the pro visions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sec tions 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the context to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law." ;