Satish Chandra, C.J. - (1.) Aggrieved against an order dated the 10th October, 1974 passed by the learned Munsiff declaring that the suit has abated, the plaintiff filed a revision under section 115 C.P.C. in the High Court. The revision was entertained and a Rule issued. Ultimately on the 21st December, 1976 the Rule was discharged on the finding that no revision lay. Subsequently on 3rd August, 1976 the plaintiff filed an appeal. The Lower Appellate Court held that the office of the Court took 61 days for preparation of the copy of the judgment. Even if that period is added, the appeal is beyond time. The time taken during the pendency of the revision was not liable to be excluded because the revision was also filed beyond the period prescribed for appeal. Aggrieved, against this order dismissing the appeal, the plaintiff has come to this Court in revision.
(2.) There is no specific period of limitation for a revision under section 115 C.P.C. Hence, the residuary Article 137 will apply. Under it the period of limitation is 3 years. Admittedly the revision was filed within this period. Hence, the period during which the revision was pending was liable to be excluded under section 14 of the Limitation Act, The revision was disposed of on the 28th July, 1976 and the appeal was preferred on the 3rd August, 1976. There was hence sufficient cause for the delay. In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The impugned order dismissing the same as barred by limitation is set aside. The matter is sent back to the Lower Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. No order is made as to costs.;