- (1.) AN application for review under sec. 26 of the Rajas-than Zamindari & Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 was presented by the applicant on 10th November, 1970 against the second appellate order passed by a Division Bench of the Board dated the 5th August, 70 which consisted of two members viz. Shri Ram Singh and Shri Niranjan Singh. Shri Niranjan Singh ceased to be a' member of the Board with effect from 1-1-1971 and so it came up for hearing before Shri Ram Singh Member on 16th February, 1971 for admission of the review. This learned member admitted the review for hearing on 26th February, 1971. He ceased to be a member of the Board with effect from 2nd September, 1971. The record of the case further discloses the fact that this review application was not subsequently heard by Shri Ram Singh, Member till he remained in the Board. On the other hand, a Division Bench consisting of Sarvashri Kailash Dan Ujwal and D. C. Joseph dealt with it on 26th July, 1971 and another Division Bench consisting of Sarvashri N. C. Bhatnagar and Purshottam Dass Kudal on 14th January, 1972. It came up for hearing before another Division Bench of the Board consist' ing of Sarvashri C. S. Gupta and R. Mookerjee on I9th May, 1972. In the hearing before the Board of Revenue, on 19th May, 1972 the learned counsel for non-applicant No. 1 has raised three preliminary objections, which are: (1) Review application was instituted on 10th Nov. 70. It was admitted ex-parte on 26th February, 1971. Notice was issued to the opposite party (Respondent) which was served on 22nd May, 1971 and he appeared before the Board on 28th May, 1971. Shri Ram Singh one of the members of the Division Bench whose order is sought to be reviewed was available upto 2nd September, 1971 and he was not precluded from hearing this review within a period of six months from its presentation. Following Larger Bench ruling of the Board reported in 1971 R. R. D. 194 (Madhu Singh vs. Moti Lal) there is bar on hearing of this review at this stage by other members of the Board other than those whose order is sought to be reviewed. (2) Application for review presented on 10th Nov. , 1970 was incomplete as it was not accompanied by an affidavit as required under rule 20 (1) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual, 1956. The affidavit was actually filed on 6th February, 1971 when limitation had expired. (3) Application for review need not accompany a copy of the impugned order or judgment as is necessary in the case of appeal or revision under rule 17 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual 1956, hence time taken by the applicant to file certified copy of judgment cannot be excluded for purposes of limitation and benefit of sec. 12 of the India Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be given to the applicant.
(2.) WE have heard counsel for both the parties and after examining their contentions we record our conclusions as follows. In respect of the first objection of the learned counsel for non-applicant No. 1 we find that the present case is to be governed by 1971 R. R. D. 194 The judgment sought to be reviewed was given by Shri Ram Singh and Shri Niranjan Singh Members on 5th August, 1970. Shri Niranjan Singh ceased to be a Member of the Board with effect from 1st January, 1971. Shri Ram Singh member however was available in the Board and he heard the application for review on 16th February, 1971 and 26th February, 1971 and passed an order for admitting the review after hearing exparte. Thereafter, he continued to be the Member of the Board upto 2 9-1971. Hence he was available to deal with this application for review. No circumstances have been shown by the learned counsel for the applicant which could have precluded Shri Ram Singh from further dealing with the present application for review It has been admitted that notice to the opposite party was issued and it was served on 22nd May, 1971 on him and he appeared before the Board on 28th May, 1971. Shri Ram Singh, Member could have heard it and decided this application for review as he was available in the Board until 2nd September, 1971 and this review could have been easily disposed of by him. Now the question before us is whether after the departure of Shri Ram Singh, Member, from the Board, it is possible for other members of the Board to, hear and decide it. It is now a confirmed legal position that Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Produce, 1908 applies to all reviews either started suo motu or on application of an aggrieved party before the Board and the general rule to be followed in the matter of hearing such applications for review is that they must be presented for review to the members of the Court who made the order. In the instant case the application for review was made before Shri Ram Singh, one of the members who passed the order sought to be reviewed and this Member also accepted the application and ordered notice to be issued to the opposite party. Thereafter, for reasons not fully established before us, this application for review was put up before various Division Benches of the Board consisting of members other than Shri Ram Singh. The applicant should have vigorously pursued his claim before Shri Ram Singh who remained attached to the Board until 2-9-71. In view of the Larger Bench ruling of the Board repotted in 1971 R. R. D. 194 this review can now not be heard by the successors of Shri Ram Singh as it is older than six months from the date of presentation The second objection raised by the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 is that the present application for review was incomplete on the date of presentation as it was not accompanied by an affidavit as prescribed in rule 20 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual, 1956, whereby it is incompetent. The sub:rule 1 of R. 20 of this Manual lays down specifically that "an application for review made on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence or any other sufficient reason" shall be accompanied by an affidavit. The application was presented on 10th Nov. , 1970 but the affidavit was filed ex-parte on 6th Feb. , 1971. This mistake has been sought to be cured after the expiry of limitation. No reasons have been advanced in support for condonation of the delay and we, there-fore, hold that the review application is barred by limitation. The third objection raised before us is that rule 17 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual, 1956 prescribes that every memorandum of appeal or application for revision shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree or order against which the appeal or revision is directed but there is no reference to an application for review in this respect. Hence it follows that copy of the decree or order sought to be reviewed need not be filed alongwith the application for review. The time taken in securing a certified copy of the order to be reviewed cannot, therefore, be excluded from the period of limitation prescribed for presentation of an application for review as contemplated under sec. 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. The period of limitation for review under sec. 26 of the Rajasthan Zamindari & Biswe-dari Abolition Act is 90 days from the date of the order sought to be reviewed, The order of the Board sought to be reviewed is dated 5th August, 1970 and so the application for review ought to have been presented before the Board by 3rd November, 1970 after excluding the day on which the order complained against was announced, but it was actually presented on 10th November. 1970. Although there is no provision in rule 17 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Manual, 1956 that an application for review should be accompanied by a copy of the impugned order but if this salutary practice has been followed by the applicant in the instant case following provisions prescribed for appeal or revision, we do not find any serious mischief has been done. There is clear provision in sec. 12 of the Limitation Act that "in computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the judgment on which the decree or order is founded shall also be excluded. " The provisions of the Limitation Act apply to proceedings before the revenue courts and hence the time taken by the applicant in obtaining a certified copy of the impugned order sought to be reviewed should be excluded from computing the limitation but the instant case is, however, barred by limitation for the reasons herein-before mentioned. Consequently, we sustain the first two preliminary objections and over-rule the third preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for non-applicant No. 1 and we hold (that the present application for review is incompetent and is, therefore, rejected. .;