Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to restoration of an application under section 17(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, and not Article 122. A company cannot rely on its lawyer's default as a ground for restoring an application dismissed for default.

( 1 ) THE instant appeal is directed against an order dated 18. 6. 85 passed by C. K. Banerjee, J as he then was, dismissing an application filed by the appellant for recalling of the order dated 3. 8. 84 passed by Asha Mukul Pal, J as he then was, whereby an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 for determination of the arrear rent payable by the appellant was dismissed for default.

( 2 ) IT is the contention of the appellant that the appellant duly briefed an Advocate to represent its case to take all necessary steps. At the initial stage the respondent opposed the application on the preliminary point that the learned single Judge could not have restored the application as he ceased to have any jurisdiction to entertain the same since the order of dismissal of the appellant's application has been drawn up and completed prior to filing of such restoration application. He also urged that the application for restoration and/or recalling of the order was barred by limitation not having been made within 30 days from the date of dismissal i. e. 3. 8. 84 and the appeal is also barred by limitation.

( 3 ) THE preliminary point urged by the respondent, however, that the learned single Judge ceased to have jurisdiction to entertain the application was given up by the learned Advocate for the appellant and was not pressed considering the several decisions of this court.

( 4 ) IN support of his second point, the learned Advocate for the respondent has urged that the restoration application before the learned Judge was barred by limitation. Learned single Judge relying on Article 122 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1969 held that the restoration application having been filed beyond the period of 30 days from the date of dismissal order was barred by limitation. The said Article 122 is set out hereinbelow :-"122. To restore a suit or appeal or application for review or revision dismissed for default of appearance or for want of prosecution or for failure to pay costs of service of process or to furnish security for costs. "it has also been argued on behalf of the respondent relying on the said Article that the same cannot apply to an application for recalling of an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. It has further been submitted that in fact there is no provision in Articles 1 to 136 of the schedule to the Limitation Act in relation to application for restoration of miscellaneous proceedings like an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956.

( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, it has been argued that the limitation period in respect of an application for restoration of an application under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 which is in the nature of a miscellaneous application would necessarily be governed by Article 137 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. In other words, it has been contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the limitation period for such restoration application is three years from the date of dismissal of the application sought to be restored.

( 6 ) IT appears on perusal of the said Article 122 that the same stipulates 30 days limitation period for application to restore specific proceedings mentioned therein viz. a suit or an appeal or application for review or application for revision dismissed for default. It also appears on true construction of Article 122 that the same does not relate to an application for restoration of any other legal proceeding including a proceeding under section 17 (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act which is in the nature of a miscellaneous proceeding.

( 7 ) IN this connection judgment and decision of the Special Bench of this court in the case of Mst. Nurnahar Bewa v. Rabindra Nath Dev reported in AIR 1988 Cal 358 may be taken note of. In the aforesaid decision it was held that the limitation period for an app