K.S. Lodha, J.
1. This revision by the Union of India and the Commandant, 15th, Border Security Force, is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Barmer, dated 17-9-82, by which he has rejected the reference made by the Collector Under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), as barred by time.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. It may be mentioned that earlier also, the application for reference had been held to be barred by time by the learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 13-3-76 but on a revision, this Court by its order dated 5-1-80 had remanded the-matter with, a direction to record evidence whether Mr. Arjun Singh was present at the time the award was made and it is in pursuance of that order of remand that after taking further evidence, the learned Civil Judge has passed the present order.
4. Two contentions have been raised before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. His first contention is that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the question of limitation of the application for reference. His second contention is that as the question whether the learned Civil Judge had jurisdiction to go into the question of limitation had not been decided by this Court by its earlier order it is open to the petitioners to raise this question even now and such a question would not be barred. In support of his first contention, he relied upon a number of authorities of High Courts other than the Rajasthan High Court e.g. Hari Kishan v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 Punjab 490, Venkateswaraswami v. Sub-Collector, Bezwada AIR 1943 Mad. 327, Madansinhj' Suheb v. State of Gujarat AIR 1963 Gujarat 175, Kalivanchand v. Kanchanbai : AIR1963MP220 and State of U.P. v. Abdul Karim : AIR1963All556 and in support of the second contention, he relied upon Perumal v. Pandaran AIR 1951 TravancoreCochin 26. Gopal Chandra v. Dwarika Nath AIR 1941 Cal. 446 and G. Gurumurthy v. K. Ayuappa : 3SCR595 .
5. So far as the second contention goes, it may at once be stated that when an appellate court remands the matter to the trial court on some question without deciding the other questions raised in the appeal, the questions left open can be agitated later on in case the matter is again brought before that court but the questions, which are decided or which are or must be deemed to have been decided while remanding the matter, the order of remand would be conclusive in respect of those matters and the same would not be open to reagitation. This view expressed by the authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners does not admit of any doubt. Here in the present case when this Court remanded the matter for consideration of the question of limitation and directing evidence to be taken in this respect, it must be deemed that the court was of the opinion that the question of limitation was open for consideration before the learned Civil Judge because if the court was of the view or even could have come to the conclusion that the question of limitation cannot be agitated before the court to which a reference is made by the Collector, there was no occasion for remanding for reconsidering the question of limitation and, therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the court must have been of the opinion that the question of limitation could be agitated before the learned Civil Judge. That being so, it is now not open to the learned counsel for the petitioners to agitate in this revision that the question of limitation could not have been gone into by the learned Civil Judge. This objection, therefore, deserves to be rejected.
6. The second objection, as a matter of fact does not survive for consideration in view of what I have stated in respect of the first objection. However, it may be stated that the view propounded by the various High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners has not found favour with this Court and this Court has categorically held is Rajasthan State v. L.D. Silva AIR 1957 Raj. 44 and Lakshmi Narayan v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1966 Raj. 118 that the court to which a reference is made by the Collector, can go into the question whether the application for reference had been filed within time or not. Therefore, also I am clearly of the opinion that the learned Civil Judge was within his jurisdiction in deciding the question of limitation in this manner.
7. Faced with this situation, the learned Counsel also tried to show that there was no evidence to show that Shri Arjun Singh, the representative of the present petitioner was present at the time the award was made and, therefore, the order of the learned Civil Judge holding that the petitioners must have come to know of the passing of the award at the time when it was made and, therefore, the limitation started running from that day is not proper. In my opinion, this contention also is without any substance. The court below has referred to evidence and has come to a conclusion that Shri Arjun Singh was present at the time of the making of the award. This is a finding of fact and is not open to challenge in the revision.
8. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in this revision and it is hereby summarily rejected.