G.M. LODHA, J. — This is a tenants revision application, in an ejectment suit, against the judgment stariking off his defence. The appeal filed before the Additional District Judge No. 2, Alwar was dismissed on May 18, 1979.

2. In this ejectment suit, the plea of the plaintiff was for granting of a decree on the basis of the default and also bonafide necessity. On November 29, 1975, the Court ordered under section 13 (1) (a) that the defendant should deposit Rs. 488.75p being arrears of rent within one month. The deposit was made on January 2, 1976.

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the Courts were closed between December 24, 1975 to January 1, 1976 on account of the Winter Vacations.

4. On an application for striking off defence under Section 13 (6) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Court relying upon the judgments passed in Yogesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (1) and in the case of Chimna vs. Chunni Lal (2) held that tenant has committed default in compliance of the orders of the Court and he cannot take benefit of Winter Vacations, because the amount could have been deposited, as it was not an ordinary work of the court, but was an extra ordinary work.

5. A perusal of the above two judgments shows that the case of Chimna vs. Chunni Lal (2) is based on notification for summer vacations. The ground was that the amount could have been deposited as it was not an ordinary work and court can do urgent work. In the second case, the matter related to the filing of the appeal in relation to the injunction, and the question was whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal during the vacations.

6. In the insstant case, I am not deciding the controversy whather during the winter vacation the amount could be deposited or not?

7. The case has assumed new dimensions, because of the references made to section 11 of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 which reads as under:

"11. Computation of time-Where, by any Rajasthan Law, any Act or proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the court or office is closed on that day or the last day &f the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the court or office is open : Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to any act or proceeding to which the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, (Central) Act IX of 1908) applies."

8. The section quoted above expressly permits that if any proceeding is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the court or office is closed on that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time, if it is done or taken, on the next day on which the court or office is opened.

9. This section is analogous to section 10 of Central General Clauses Act which has been interpreted by Honble the Supreme Court in Harinder Singh vs. S. Kernail Singh(3). Honble the Supreme Court has held that where a period is prescribed for the performance of an act in a Court or office, and that period expires on a holiday then according to the section, the act should be considered to have been done within that period, if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office is to open.

10. In Madan Gopal Daga vs. Rallis India Ltd. (4) Calcutta High Court has observed as under :—

"One of the fundamental principles in administration of justice is Actus Curine Neminem Gravabit which means that an act of Court shall prejudice no man. In construing and applying an ambigous order of Court this principle should be observed. It means that no litigant or person should be hurt or damaged or prejudiced by any ambiguity of the order of the Court. If the time fixed for payment of adjo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document