ISRANI, J. - (1.) AFTER the order dated 23. 11. 1992, by which, it was held that revision petition against the impugned order dated July 9, 1992 did not lie was dictated and it was held that only appeal could have been filed under the provisions of Section 22 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for brevity 'the Act') and oral prayer by Shri S. C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner was made. The time for filing appeal against the impugned order before the learned District Judge may be extended as the petitioner had been persuing a legal remedy in this Court.
(2.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this Court has inherent powers to grant such relief in the interest of justice. A reference was also made to provisions of Section 151 read with Section 115 CPC. IT is submitted that it was a bonafide mistake on behalf of the petitioner to have filed revision petition instead of appeal. The learned counsel referred to order dated November 11, 92 passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 7230 of 1992 (Jagdish Prasad vs. State ). The above mentioned writ petition was dismissed as an appeal against the impugned order could have been filed before the Rajasthan State Service Appellate Tribunal. This Court relying on the case of S. Jagadeesan vs. Ayya Nadar Janaki Ammal College & Another directed that the petitioner may file appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days from date of the order of dismissal of the writ petition. IT is, therefore, prayed that the matter under consideration also the petitioner may be given time to file appeal before the District Judge. It is submitted by Shri Mandhana, learned counsel that the order of this Court is also the order of the Apex Court were passed in writ petitions under extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226/136 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke support of these orders. It is pointed out that the matter under consideration is governed under Section 14 of the Limitation Act which deals that exclusion of time of proceedings bonafide in court without jurisdiction. This Section refers that "in computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence an other civil proceedings, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceedings relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. " It is further submitted that this Section also provides certain explanations while computing the exclusion of time. It is also pointed out that petitioner has filed revision against the impugned order, by which, his defence against eviction has been struck of under clause (5) of Section 3 of the Act, 1950. In appeal against the same could have been filed within 30 days in the court of District Judge. However, the petitioner did not file appeal within the prescribed limitation, but has filed revision on October 7, 1992 long after the period of 30 days had expired. Thus, the petitioner has tried to get his revision entertained, even though, the period for limitation of appeal has expired. I have heard both the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to this question. At the very outset, it may be stated that the authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are regarding the writ petitions which are entertained by this Court under its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, evidently these authorities are of no help to the petitioner. On careful consideration of this matter, it can be said that if a precedent of extending time for filing appeal while rejecting revision petition is given it will open a back door for getting time extended for filing appeal in the appropriate court by filing revision petition in the High Court and thereafter getting it dismissed with a prayer to extend the time. The limitation for filing an appeal is prescribed under law and the explanation given by the learned counsel regarding not filing the appeal, even though it is provided, is not convincing. In this case perhaps the interest of justice requires that prayer for extension of time should not be accepted. I, therefore, do not deem it appropriate to accept the request for extension of time and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the revision petition is also dismissed with no order as to costs. .;