H.N. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. T. Michi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Tagia, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Ms. G. Deka, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No. 1, 2 & 3.

2. By this application the petitioner prayed for condoning the delay of 41 days (?) in filing the Civil Revision Petition No. 136/2004. Notice of the aforesaid application was issued on 1.7.2004 in pursuant to which the Respondent No. 4 has filed his objection resisting the prayer for condoning the delay of 41 days.

3. In the affidavit in opposition the respondent No. 4 has denied the correctness of the statement made in the petition. The petitioner's case is that, she is a lady staying at Along in the West Siang District and she entrusted her case with an Advocate namely Sri Gilli Ate to file the present revision petition. But later on it was found that the said Advocate did not file the petition and has left Itanagar. After constant persuasion the petitioner could obtain the necessary papers of the case from the said Advocate and there after she entrusted with the present Advocate for filing the case and in the process there has been delay of 41 days for filing the revision. The petitioner is a layman and the delay in filing the petition has been caused for the reasons beyond her control. Accordingly, Mr. T. Michi, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the revision petition should be condoned,

4. At this stage Mr. N. Tagia, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 has raised an issue regarding the maintainability of the present Misc. Case. Mr. Tagia has pointed out that under Section 50 of The Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945, the High Court may, on application or otherwise, call for the proceedings of any original case or appeal decided by the Deputy Commissioner and not appealable under this Regulation and may pass such orders as it may deem fit. Thus, the High Court is entrusted with the power of revision against the orders mentioned in Section 50 of the regulation, Section 51 provides "every petition of appeal under Section 47 or Section 48 and every application under Section 50 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order against which the appeal or application is made, and shall be filed within thirty days of the date of such order, excluding the time taken in procuring a copy of the order". Under Section 52 it is provided that the High Court shall follow the principles of Indian Limitation Act, 1908 in disputes between persons who are not indigenous to the Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh. Further Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that, "where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so for as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law".

5. Referring to the aforesaid sections Mr. N. Tagia has submitted that the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 being a Special/local law and under the provisions of Section 52 of the said Regulation not having provided that the Limitation Act would be applicable for indigenous persons, the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable and the delay in filing the petition cannot be condoned.

6. Mr. T. Michi, on the other hand has pointed out that this point has not been taken out in the affidavit in opposition filed by the petitioner and accordingly it may not be permitted to raise at the stage of hearing. He further submits that the practice of this Court since the days of its establishment is that the del