A.P.Misra - (1.) -The present revision has been preferred as against an order dated 21st May, 1984. by virtue of which the earlier order dated 14th October, 1983, was recalled.
(2.) THE main argument raised on behalf of the applicant is that the court below committed an error in reviewing its earlier order dated 14th October, 1983, firstly, when the said order merged in the order passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 613 of 1983 by virtue of which the earlier order which was challenged by the respondent was dismissed; and, secondly, an application for recall of the said order was in effect an application for review and limitation for it being thirty days under Article 124 of the Limitation Act the court entertaining the said application beyond time has committed error. Initially, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent that this is not a case decided and, therefore, it is not revisible. The principle regarding the question whether this case "is decided or not" is well settled. Where any controversy which decides finally a dispute between the parties would fall within the words "case decided". The only dispute in the present case was whether the court was competent to review its earlier order dated 14th October, 1983, and in recalling the said order the right of the party has been affected, which was finally decided earlier. Thus, the preliminary objection that the impugned order does not amount to "case decided" is not tenable. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the judgment I find that in the present case earlier order dated 14th October, 1983 was passed by virtue of which the defence of the respondent was struck off under Order XV, rule 5, CPC. The respondent being aggrieved as against it thereafter filed Civil Revision No. 613 of 1983 before this Court, which was dismissed on 16th November, 1983. It is thereafter on 11th January, 1984, the present application was moved for review of the earlier order passed by the court. An objection was raised even before the trial court that this application is barred by time as limitation for review of judgment is thirty days, while the present application was moved much beyond time. It seems that the trial court rejected that contention by applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act On bare perusal of aforesaid Articles of the Limitation Act makes the position clear. The present case falls under Article 124 and not under Article 137. Article 137 is in a case where an application was made for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere but under Article 124 of the Limitation Act for review of judgment by a court other than the Supreme Court a period of thirty days has been provided from the date of decree or order. The respondent could have made this application within the said period. That having not been made the application was barred by time. The Court below in treating the said application under Article 137 committed an error of law. Accordingly, the order dated 21st May, 1984, is set aside. The application dated 11th January, 1984, for review of the earlier order dated 14th October, 1983, being moved beyond time was not entertainable.
(3.) THE present revision is allowed with costs. Revision allowed.;