- (1.) THE applicants pray for the issue of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the orders passed by the panchayati adalat of Bhojipura and by the Sub-divisional magistrate. The applicants were prosecuted by the opposite-party No. 3 for offences of Sections 426, 323 and 506, I. P. C. before the panchayati adalat. The panchayati adalat convicted them of the offences and fined them on 12-8-1952. On 15-9-1952 they applied for a copy of the order and on 31-10-1952 they applied to the Sub-divisional Magistrate under Section 85 of the panchayat Raj Act for revision of the order. The Sub-divisional Magistrate dismissed the application on the ground that having been filed more than sixty days from the date of the order, it was barred by time. He thought that under Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act an application for revision of a panchayati adalat's order must be filed within sixty days of it. As the application was made after more than sixty days, it was thought by him to be barred by time. It is contended before me that the applicants were entitled under the Limitation Act to deduct the time spent by them in obtaining the copy of the panchayati adalat's order and that if it was deducted their application was within time. They also questioned in the application the validity of the panchayati adalat's order on several grounds.
(2.) THEIR counsel has confined the application only to challenging the order of the Sub-divisional magistrate. The merits of the panchayati adalat's order are not before me.
(3.) IT is laid down in Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act that if there has been a miscarriage of justice or if there is an apprehension of miscarriage of justice in any case, the Sub-divisional magistrate "may, on the application of any party or on his own motion, at any time in a pending case. . . . . . . and within sixty days from the date of. . . . . . order, call for the record of the case and may. . . . . . quash any. . . . . . order passed by the panchayati adalat. " the limitation prescribed under this provision is not for the making of an application by the aggrieved party but for the calling for the record of the case. The law is that the record must be called for within sixty days from the date of the order and not that an application for revision must be made within that period. I do not know why the Legislature prescribed the period of limitation not for the doing of an act by a party but for the doing of an act by the Court. If it be said that no period of limitation is prescribed by the Legislature for an application under Section 85 of the Act, the limitation would be governed by the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation act. This article does not govern an application for revision under the Codes of Criminal and civil Procedure but it does not follow that it would not govern an application for revision under section 85 of the Panchayat Raj Act also. This revision is different from the revision filed under the Codes. Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 435 of the Code of Criminal procedure do not mention any applications to be made for the exercise of revisional powers; they simply provide for the summoning of the record by the Courts of revision. As they deal only with the summoning of the records by the Courts of revision, there does not arise any question of a period of limitation for making an application for revision. But Section 85 of the Panchayat Raj act specifically refers to an application to the Sub-divisional Magistrate for the exercise of his revisional powers and therefore it must be governed by some limitation. It is clear that if the record itself has to be summoned within sixty days, the application must of necessity be made within sixty days. If it is made after sixty days, it would be dismissed if not on the ground that it is barred by time, at least on the ground that the record cannot be summoned. It is evident that article 181 of the Limitation Act is not intended to govern such an application. It seems to me that the less unreasonable view to take is that the Legislature has intended to prescribe sixty days as the period of limitation for making an application under Section 85.;