Skip to content


Ram Lal Vs. Amar Chand - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in17Ind.Cas.653
AppellantRam Lal
RespondentAmar Chand
Excerpt:
agra tenancy act (ii of 1901), sections 77, 167 and 193 - appeal to district judge--limitation--limitation act (ix of 1908), section 29(b), schedule i, article 152. - - from the facts set out in the judgment of the court, i am satisfied that the decision of the court below on that point was correct......contends that the tenancy act does not prescribe any period of limitation for appeals preferred to district judges under the provisions of section 167 of that act, he points out that schedule e of that act prescribes periods of limitation for appeals to collectors, commissioners and the board, whereas in the matter of appeals to district judges, the act is silent. he refers to section 29(b) of the limitation act, which provides that nothing shall affect or alter any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law now or hereafter in force in british india. as a matter of recognised practice, limitation for appeals to district judges has always been taken to be one month from the date of the decree and it appears to me that the provision of.....
Judgment:

Henry Griffin, J.

1. A second appeal in a revenue suit to the learned District Judge of Jaunpore was dismissed by him on a preliminary ground that the appeal had been filed beyond time and no sufficient cause had been shown for extending the time for the filing of the appeal. Two grounds have been taken in the application for revision to this Court. One ground is that on the merits, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. From the facts set out in the judgment of the Court, I am satisfied that the decision of the Court below on that point was correct. The applicant had himself to thank for the delay in the filing of the appeal after the expiry of one month from the date of the decree. The second ground raises a question as to which no ruling has been quoted before me. Mr. Hamilton for the applicant contends that the Tenancy Act does not prescribe any period of limitation for appeals preferred to District Judges under the provisions of Section 167 of that Act, He points out that Schedule E of that Act prescribes periods of limitation for appeals to Collectors, Commissioners and the Board, whereas in the matter of appeals to District Judges, the Act is silent. He refers to Section 29(b) of the Limitation Act, which provides that nothing shall affect or alter any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law now or hereafter in force in British India. As a matter of recognised practice, limitation for appeals to District Judges has always been taken to be one month from the date of the decree and it appears to me that the provision of Section 193 of the Tenancy Act sufficiently covers the question now before me. That section provides that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to procedure in all suits and other proceedings under the Tenancy Act so far as they are not inconsistent therewith subject to certain modifications. An appeal to the District Judge is, therefore, governed by the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Article 152 of the Limitation Act, a period of thirty days is prescribed for appeals to District Judges. I see no reason to interfere. The application is dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.


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