- (1.) THIS is an application in revision submitted to the State Council of Sirohi from the order of the Revenue Member, Sirohi State, dated 28. 11. 1948. With the merger of the former Sirohi State in Rajasthan the Revenue Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, has transferred this application to the Board of Revenue under his letter No. 82, dated 28. 8. 1952, for disposal.
(2.) IN a suit between the parties pending before the Revenue Officer, Sirohi, Vishweshwar, the opposite-party was the plaintiff. Under the Revenue Officer's order dated 15. 6. 1945 the parties were ordered to appear on 31. 8. 1945. Vishweshwar had due notice of the date fixed but on 13. 8. 1945 neither he nor the applicant who was defendant in the case were present and the Revenue Officer dismissed the suit in default. After one and a half year Vishweshwar moved an application for restoration of the case stating that owing to the death of his wife having an infant baby his mind was so much perturbed that he left for Bombay to reside with his son and to start some commercial business there. This application was pending consideration of the Revenue Member when another application of Vishweshwar dated 1. 5. 1948 requesting a reconsideration of the order of dismissal in the case was submitted to Her Highness the Rajmata who was President of the Regency Council, Sirohi and this application was forwarded to the State Council under the endorsement of the Private Secretary dated 2. 5. 1948 with the direction that the case of the applicant should be reconsidered. The Revenue Minister heard the restoration application on 28. 11. 1948 in the presence of the parties, when the application received with the above endorsement of the private secretary was also put up before him. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for either party the Revenue Member in consideration of the ends of justice granted the restoration application. I have heard the arguments of the counsel of either party. The contention of the revision petitioner is that the application for restoration was time-barred under sec 23 (b) of the Sirohi State Land Revenue Act and under the Civil Procedure Code as it is under the Civil Procedure Code as it is under rule 21 of the Rules framed under sec. 8 of the Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951. In support of this, the. learned! counsel has cited A. I. R. 1933 Madras 258 and 1948 A. I. R. Nagpur 480 under which it was held that the court has no inherent jurisdiction to deprive a party of the right obtained by limitation and to extend time under sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, on an application to set aside an order of dismissal for default. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cites 1925, Madras 209 under which it was held that Civil Procedure Code, Order 9, Rule 9 does not empower court to set aside dismissal for default as a matter of grace. These no doubt establish that the provisions of sec. 23 (b) of the Land Revenue Act Sirohi as in the Rule 21 of Rules framed under sec. 8 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and jurisdiction) Act, have, to be strictly followed and when an application for restoration is not submitted within the time limit prescribed the court has no jurisdiction to grant the application. The learned counsel for the opposite-party argues that the order passed by the Revenue Member on 28. 11. 48 was practically in response to the directions of Her Highness the Rajmata who was the President of the Board of Regency and under Sirohi Regency Act sanctioned by His Excellency the Crown Representative and notified in the Sirohi State Gazette of 14th August, 1947 it was laid down that for the purpose of the Constitution of the Sirohi State the word Ruler wherever occurring in the Constitution shall be deemed to be the Board of Regency. The counsel therefore urges that Her Highness the Rajmata in her capacity of the resident of the Board of Regency had the powers of the ruler and could overrule a provision of law. I do not agree with this argument. The Board of Regency could amend the Law but could not order that a particular case could be decided against the Law in force. It is thus established that the application for setting aside the order of 31. 8. 45. which was moved on 8. 4. 47 i. e. more than one and a half year after the order was passed, was time-barred under sec. 23 of the Sirohi State Land Revenue Act, 1947, and the order of restoration of the case passed on that application was contrary to the provisions of Law then inforce and was ultra vires. Subject to the concurrence of my learned colleague, I would accept the revision petition and set aside the order of restoration passed by the Revenue Member, Sirohi State on 28. 11. 48. Shri Kishen Puri - I concur. . ;