M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was convicted by respondent No. 2 on a complaint made by respondent No 3 under Sections 426 and 506, I. P. C. A fine of Rs. 40/ - and 50/ - respectively was imposed on the petitioner on 10 -8 -1977. A revision was filed against the said order which came to be heard by respondent No. 1, who dismissed the same by his order dated 9 -5 -1979 The petitioner challenges the order of respondent No. 2 dated 10 -8 -1977 as also the order of respondent 1 dated 9 -5 -1979, through the medium of this writ petition. The petitioner submits that he had prayed for transfer of the case from respondent No. 2 to some other Panchayat because respondent No. 2 was determined to decide the case against the petitioner on account of influence of respondent No. 3 on the Sarpanch of respondent No. 2 Sri Ghuran Singh. The application for transfer is said to have been allowed by Sub -Divisional Officer on 16 -11 -1976. The case was ordered to be transferred to some other Bench by this order. Despite the order of transfer having been issued, the Sarpanch disposed of the matter illegally without informing the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 has dismissed the revision because the same was said to have been filed beyond 67 days. He refused to condone the' delay to entertain the revision petition.
(2.) THE petitioner challenges the order of respondent No. 1 on the ground that respondent No. 1 has not considered the effect of the order of transfer of the case dated 16 -11 -1976 and has taken a technical view which bas defeated the ends of justice. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that limitation for filing the revision cannot be extended. The limitation for filing the revision under Section 89(i) of the Panchayat Raj Act is 60 days from the date of the order complained for where personal service of summons had not been effected on the applicant from the date of the knowledge of the order, which in other words would mean that if there is service then the limitation would start from the date of order. If there is no service, limitation would start from the date of knowledge of the order. According to learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the petitioner had appeared before respondent No. 2 and limitation, therefore, would start from the date of the order and not from the date of knowledge. It is also contended by learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that Limitation Act would not apply to any proceeding before the Niyay Panchayat. A reference is made to Section 83 of the Act. In respect of the order dated 16 -11 -1976, it is submitted that if that order was not conveyed to respondent  No. 2, it will not have any effect, it will become effective only when it is conveyed to respondent No 2. Respondent No. 2 seems to have decided the case because the petitioner had failed to convey the order dated 16 -11 -1976. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 has also challenged the authority of the Sub -Divisional Officer to pass any transfer order under Section 85 of the Act. It is contended that it is the Judicial Magistrate and Munsif alone who had the competence to make an order of transfer.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter and carefully perused the record.;