Ranawat - (1.) THIS is an application for readmission of appeal No. 11 of St. 2009 dismissed for default.
(2.) THE appeal was dismissed for non-appearance of the appellant on 22.10.52 and the application for its readmission has been submitted on 26.11.52 i.e. to say 35 days after the order of dismissal. The counsel for the parties was heard. The main arguments of the counsel for the applicant for granting the application for readmission of the appeal are: (i) that no time limit for submission of such application has been fixed under the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act No. 1 of 1951; (ii) that if it is considered that the time limit fixed for such applications is 30 days, his client may be given the benefit of sec. 5 of the Limitation Act which condones such delays; (iii) that there are sufficient grounds for the delay caused in submitting this application after 30 days. The first plea of the counsel for the applicant is that such an application has not been mentioned in the first and second schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act which prescribes limitation in revenue cases. Even if it is considered that such an application is covered by item 7 of group H of the first schedule the period of limitation for such application is none. Further that vide sec. (21)3 of the rules made under sec. 8 of this Act, a time limit of 30 days has been prescribed for restoration of suits dismissed in default but no such provision has been made in sec. 191 of the same rules which provide for readmission of appeals. We have carefully considered these arguments. It is true that such an application has not found place in first or second schedule of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act, nor such application is covered by miscellaneous applications under item 7 of group H, as is evident by the contents of sub-item (i) and (ii) of this item. Nor do we consider it appropriate that such time limit should have been mentioned in sec. 191 of the rules. A perusal of sec. 9(3) of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act will show that Limitation Act of 1908 has been applied to the revenue courts. Therefore the period of limitation will be according to this sec. 29(2) which lays down that "Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the first schedule, the provisions of sec. 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that schedule, and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law - (a) the provisions contained in secs. 9 to 18, and sec. 22 shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law; and (b) the remaining provisions of this Act shall not apply". since in this case no time limit has been prescribed by the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act, therefore the time limit shall be according to the Limitation Act which, according to Art. 168 of the Schedule under sec. 3 is 30 days. Therefore we hold that this application should have been submitted within 30 days as provided. The same provision applies for readmission of appeal dismissed for default in civil law under Order 41 rule 19 where also no time limit has been prescribed as in sec. 191 of the rules. The second plea that sec. 5 of the Limitation Act has been adopted in the revenue courts vide sec. 9(3) of the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act and accordingly the applicant should be given advantage of this section does not convince us. Sec. 5 of the Limitation Acs lays down that an appeal or application may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor when the applicant satisfies the court that there is sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal or making such application within the said period. When the applicant admits that there is no period of limitation prescribed for such application, no question of extension of time under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act arises. However we take into consideration the other aspects of this point that since Limitation Act applies to revenue courts can he not take shelter under sec. 5. A perusal of Art. 168 of the Limitation. Act which prescribes period of limitation in such cases clearly lays down under the head 'Extension of time, that time prescribed by this article cannot be enlarged by sec. 5 of the Act. Therefore this plea also fails. The High Court however exercises inherent jurisdiction under sec. 151 of the C.P.C. in such cases for ends of justice. Whether such discretion can be exercised by us is under sec. 65 of the Rules framed under sec. 8 of the R.R.C.P.J. Act remains to be examined. But before deciding this point we would like to go into the merits of the case in order to find out whether |the applicant bad sufficient cause for not submitting an application within the prescribed time. The counsel for the applicant has stated that he arrived in Jaipur on 20th Nov. 1952 and finding the present counsel out of Jaipur left his application for readmission at his residence. The counsel submitted this application on his return to Jaipur on the 26th November 1952. This is not sufficient cause for condoning the d ay. He could engage another counsel if be was serious about prosecuting the appeal. Similarly on the occasion of dismissal of his appeal he had another counsel Shree Mohanlal who also did not appear before the court and sent a telegram the same day to the present counsel to appear on his behalf and as the counsel was out he could not attend the court. This is not sufficient ground for condoning the delay. We, therefore, dismiss the application. ;