Skip to content


U. Kino Kharbangar Vs. U. Kyron and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject;Limitation
CourtGuwahati High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 129(M) of 1951
Judge
ActsKhasi States Administration of Justice Order, 1950 - Rules 26, 27, 34 and 36; Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 5; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 115
AppellantU. Kino Kharbangar
RespondentU. Kyron and ors.
Appellant AdvocateB.B. Goswami and B.S. Guha, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateP.K. Lahiri, Adv.
DispositionApplication rejected
Excerpt:
- - 2. the learned advocate for the appellant has further submitted that this appeal may be treated as a proceeding under rule 27 of the khasi states (administration of justice) order, 1950, but i find no substance in that prayer as it is not for this court to call for the proceedings of the subordinate courts unless it is brought to the notice of this court that there has been certain irregularity committed by the court below which has caused failure of justice. in this view, as well, this prayer has no substance......5, indian limitation act at all applies to such proceedings as provided under the rules of the khasi states (administration of justice) order, 1950. in my opinion, it does not. we are governed by rule 26 of the khasi states (administration of justice) order, 1950 which says that an appeal shall lie within the sixty days of the date of decision exclusive of the time needed for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against to the high court from any original or appellate decision of the deputy commissioner except in matters involving customary laws. in this case, the order appealed against is that of the additional deputy commissioner dated 2-4-51 and if the time taken for obtaining a copy of the order is taken into consideration. 6-6-51 is the last date on which this appeal ought to.....
Judgment:

Deka, J.

1. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and gone through the papers. I find no reasons to condone the delay in the presentation of the appeal and it is doubtful whether Section 5, Indian Limitation Act at all applies to such proceedings as provided under the rules of the Khasi States (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950. In my opinion, it does not. We are governed by Rule 26 of the Khasi States (Administration of justice) Order, 1950 which says that an appeal shall lie within the sixty days of the date of decision exclusive of the time needed for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against to the High Court from any original or appellate decision of the Deputy Commissioner except in matters involving customary laws. In this case, the order appealed against is that of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 2-4-51 and if the time taken for obtaining a copy of the order is taken into consideration. 6-6-51 is the last date on which this appeal ought to have been presented.

Rule 34 of the Khasi States (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 provides that except in so far as provided by these rules, the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (Act 9 of 1908) shall not apply to suits in which either or both parties are Khasis, Lushais or members of the backward tribes enumerated in the Thirteenth Schedule to the Government of India (Provincial Legislative Assemblies) Order, 1936. Rule 36 makes no mention of the proceedings that are maintainable in the High Court and I must accordingly hold that the appeal not being presented within the time prescribed by Rule 26, it must be construed to be presented out of time and as such non-entertainable. The memorandum of appeal is therefore to be rejected as presented out of time.

2. The learned Advocate for the appellant has further submitted that this appeal may be treated as a proceeding under Rule 27 of the Khasi States (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950, but I find no substance in that prayer as it is not for this Court to call for the proceedings of the Subordinate Courts unless it is brought to the notice of this Court that there has been certain irregularity committed by the Court below which has caused failure of justice. The spirit of the Civil Procedure Code being that a revision is not competent when an appeal lies, I must hold that in this case to, an appeal being competent a revision would not lie. In this view, as well, this prayer has no substance.

3. The result is that the application for ex

tension of time for registration of the appeal is rejected and the memorandum of appeal is direct

ed to be returned to the appellant. It makes

no order as to costs. The Rule is discharged.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //