- (1.) THESE are five applications for revision preferred by the State against the appellate orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority, Udaipur in proceedings under the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
(2.) TWO preliminary objections have been raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the opposite party in each case. One is that these applications for revision which have admittedly been presented after the expiry of 90 days from the dates of the impugned orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority are barred by limitation. The other objection is that as required under Rule 17 of the Revenue Courts Manual, the copies of the original orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer which formed the subject matter of the impugned orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority had not been submitted, as such the applications for revision could not be taken to have been properly presented. In case it is held that the period of limitation in these cases is 90 days, the second objection would be very material, but it would lose force if the decision is to the contrary. These applications for revision have been filed under Section 23b of the Act. This section does not mention any period of limitation for applications for revision to the Board of Revenue. However, Section 27 of the Act applies to proceedings under the Act in the following terms - "27. Application of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 - (1) Sections 6 to 9 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 shall not apply to suits or proceedings under this Act. (2) Except as declared in sub-sections (1), the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 shall apply to all proceedings under this Act, as if a certificate were a decree of a Civil Court. " Sub-section (2) of Section 27 refers to the application of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, to proceedings under the Act, but the former statute contains no provision with regard to the limitation applicable to revision proceedings. Undoubtedly, the Limitation Act of 1908 has been replaced by the Limitation Act of 1963 which is in force on 1-1-1964, and Article 131 of the new Act of 1963 embodies a provision with regard to the limitation in the case of revisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the period prescribed being 90 days from the date of the decree or order sought to be revised. The question is whether Article 131 of the new Limitation Act of 1963 can be applied in the case before me. I have n6 doubt that it does not. Their Lordships of the Privy Council have ruled in A. I. R. 1931 P. C. 149, that where certain provisions from an existing Act have been incorporated into a subsequent Act, no addition to the former Act which is not expressly made applicable to the subsequent Act can be deemed to be incorporated in it, at all events if it is possible for the subsequent Act to function effectually without the addition. It is quite clear that the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 insofar as they are attracted to these cases before me, can operate effectually without the additions made to the Act of 1908 by the new Limitation Act of 1963. The learned Government Advocate has argued that the provisions of Article 131 of the new Act of 1963 cannot be applied to any pending proceedings in view of the provisions of Section 31 of the new Act of 1963. In my view, Sec. 31 of the Limitation Act of 1963 is not attracted so far as these applications for revisions are concerned. These applications were filed after 1-1-1964 and cannot be construed to have been pending at the commencement of the Limitation Act of 1963, the date of commencement being 1-1-1964. In my view Section 31 of the new Limitation Act of 1963 cannot be interpreted to mean that the period of limitation for revisions would not be affected by Article 131 of the new Act in cases where the proceedings originally commenced before 1-1-1964. On the contrary, the wording of Section 31 suggests that the suits, appeals or applications have to be taken as separate entities for the purpose of Section 31 of the new Limitation Act of 1963. In the view which I have taken above, these applications for revision are not governed by Article 131 of the Limitation Act of 1963, and as such they cannot be dismissed only on the ground that these have been presented after the expiry of 90 days from the dates of the orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority. Since no limitation applies, Rule 17 of the Revenue Courts Manual would not operate with the same rigour as in the case of appeals which are subject to limitation. The learned Government Advocate has sought time to produce copies of the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer on which the impugned orders of the Revenue Appellate Authority were passed. This is allowed. These cases will be taken up again on 29-7-1965 when these applications for revision will be heard on the merits, subject to the condition that the copies of the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer are available on that date. . ;