Bhimaji Narayanrao Lokur, J. - (1.) A suit for recovery of money filed by the petitioners against opp. party No. 3 in the Small Causes Court and transferred to a Nyaya Panchayat was dismissed by the Nyaya Panchayat. The petitioners applied in revision to the Munsif beyond the period of sixty days prescribed by S. 89 of the Panchayat Raj Act and the Munsif dismissed the revision application as barred by time. An application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act was also made by the petitioners for condonation of the delay but the Munsif was of the view that S. 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to revisions u/S. 89 of the Panchayat Raj Act. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners seek by this writ petition to have the order passed by the Munsif quashed. The view taken by the learned Munsif that S. 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to revisions filed u/S. 89 of the Panchayat Raj Act is clearly erroneous. S. 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides that where a special or local law prescribes for any suit or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Limitation Act the provisions contained in Ss. 4 to 24 shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. The effect of this provision is that unless the Panchayat Raj Act excludes the operation of S. 5 of the Limitation Act in regard to applications for revisions u/S. 89 of that Act, S. 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to such revision applications. S. 89(1) prescribes the period of limitation but does not expressly exclude the application of S. 5 of the Limitation Act to the revision applications under that section. The learned counsel for respondent No. 3 drew my attention to S. 68 of the Panchayat Raj Act which requires a civil case instituted before a Nyaya Panchayat after the period of limitation prescribed in the Schedule to the Act to be dismissed even though the Limitation Act has not been applied to such cases. It was argued that S. 68 makes a provision which applies also to revision applications u/S. 89. I am unable to accept such a view for the simple reason that S. 68 refers to cases instituted before the Nyaya Panchayat and to the period of limitation prescribed by the Schedule. These two provisions in the Sec. make the Sec. applicable only to cases before the Nyaya Panchayat and exclude the principle of S. 68 in respect of the revision applications u/S. 89. Learned counsel also argued that S. 53 expressly mentions that the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, shall not apply to any civil case in a Nyaya Panchayat. This provision also is restricted in its application to proceedings before the Nyaya Panchayat and cannot be extended to the revision applications u/S. 89.
(2.) In the view I take, the learned Munsif erred in law in taking the view that S. 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable to a revision application u/S. 89. His order therefore deserves to be and is hereby quashed, and he is directed to dispose of the revision application after deciding the application made u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act. It is made clear that the merits of the application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act presented by the petitioners is not considered in this petition. It may further be made clear that the fact that respondent No. 3 has not filed a counter -affidavit in this case should not be taken as his admission to the various averments made in the petition and that the request of respondent No. 3 for time to file counter -affidavit was not granted as the question involved in the petition was purely of law. No order as to costs.;