MILAP CHANDRA, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge, Pali dated May 10,. 1988 by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
(2.) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the judgment against which appeal was filed was delivered on February 7, 1987, application for obtaining a certified copy of the judgement was moved on February 10, 1987, February 11, 1987 was fixed for delivery of the certified copy, it was ready on February 19, 1987, it was delivered on February 21, l987 another application for obtaining a certified copy of the decree was moved on March 3, 1987, it was delivered on March 6, 1987, appeal was filed on March 24, 1987 and the appeal was perfectly within limitation as the time required in obtaining the certified copies have to be excluded. In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the non- petitioner that the petitioner himself moved an application under Section 5, Limitation Act for condonation of delay and it was rejected as the reasons mentioned in it were not found sufficient by the learned District Judge, Pali. Order rejecting time barred memorandum of appeal consequent upon refusal to condone delay under Section 5, Limitation Act is not a decree as defined in Section 2 (2), C. P. C. As such no appeal lies under Section 96, C. P. C. and a revision petition under Section 115, C. P. C. is perfectly maintainable. Reference of Mamuda Khateen V. Beniyan Bibi (1) (F. B.), may be made here. Admittedly, judgment under appeal was delivered by the Civil Judge, Pali on February 7, 1987. The certified copies of the judgment and decree enclosed with the memo of appeal show that applications for obtaining them were moved separately and within limitation. It is clear from the certified copy of the judgment that it was delivered after 12 days and from the certified copy of the decree that it was delivered after four days. As such 16 days were required for obtaining them. Admittedly, the appeal was filed on March 24, 1987. Obviously, it was filed within 46 days. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner that the petitioner himself moved an application under Section 5, Limitation Act for the condonation" of delay. It is well settled law that an admission made in ignorance of correct facts or rights is not binding.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the learned District Judge, Pali dated May 10, 1988 is set aside. The appeal will be decided in accordance with law. The parties will appear before the District, Judge, Pali on 8. 9. 89. .;