2014 Supreme(All) 3423
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Pankaj Mithal, J.
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal and Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Sachin Agrawal - Respondent
S.C.C. Revision Defective No. - 189 of 2014
Decided On : 07-11-2014
For the Revisionist :- K.K. Tiwari
For the Opposite Party :- K.P. Tiwari
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a more authoritative pronouncement on the question of the period of limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court, leading to a direction to refer the matter to a larger Bench for resolution.
Headnote:
Limitation - Revision under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 - 25 - The judgment discusses the controversy regarding the period of limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court, with conflicting views from different courts and a reference to the Supreme Court's decision. The court ultimately directs the matter to be referred to a larger Bench for resolution.
Fact of the Case:
The revision to the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 was reported to be beyond time by 35 days, leading to a question of the period of limitation for filing a revision before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found conflicting decisions on the point of limitation for filing revision in the High Court under Section 25 of the Act, leading to a direction to refer the matter to a larger Bench for resolution.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the period of limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court, with conflicting views from different courts and a reference to the Supreme Court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the conflicting views from different courts and the need for a more authoritative pronouncement on the question, leading to a direction to refer the matter to a larger Bench for resolution.
Final Decision: The court directed the matter to be referred to a larger Bench for resolution and proposed to proceed to hear the revision on merits after condoning the delay, if any, in filing the same.
Pankaj Mithal,J.
This is a revision to the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order passed by the Small Causes Court.
2. The office has reported the revision to be beyond time by 35 days by taking the limitation for filing the revision to be 30 days.
3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has questioned the period of the limitation of 30 days for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court and has contended that the limitation is 90 days as per Article 131 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 inasmuch as no period for filing revision before the High Court has been provided under Section 25 of the Act and the limitation of 30 days provided therein is for a revision before the District Judge/Additional District Judge only.
4. Section 25 of the Act in its application to the State of U.P. reads as under : -
"25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes.?The District Judge, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of an aggrieved party made within thirty days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit.
[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 17 of 1966, sec.2 (w.e.f.29.06.1966)]
Provided that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes, the power of revision under this section shall vest in the High Court.
[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 37 of 1972 sec. 3 (w.e.f.20.9.1972)]."
5. A bare reading of the above provision reveals that the limitation for taking cognizance of a revision by the District Judge against the order of small causes court is 30 days. However, it does not provide any time limit for filing revision before the High Court in cases decided by the District Judge or the Additional District Judge in exercise of jurisdiction of a Judge Small Causes Court.
6. Thus, the question is whether the period of limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court is 30 days or 90 days.
7. There are decisions of this court which holds that the limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court would be 30 days as has been provided in the aforesaid provision for filing a revision before the District Judge.
8. A learned Single Judge of Lucknow Bench of this court in Civil Revision No.97 of 2013 The Pioneer Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Nath Kapoor and another has held that the period of limitation for filing SCC Revision before the High Court under Section 25 of the Act is 30 days.
9. A similar view was expressed by the another Single Judge of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its decision dated 25.09.2013 in Civil Revision (Defective) No.121 of 2013, Shiv Raj Enterprises Transport Crossing Lohar Bagh Vs. Virendra Kumar Jain and another and it was held that the limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court is 30 days.
10. Earlier on a reference, the above controversy had gone before the Division Bench of this court in the case of District Manager, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Yans Prasad Jain and another 1983 (1) ARC 595. The Division Bench answered the reference and held that a revision before the High Court under Section 25 of the Act can be filed within 30 days of the order.
11. On the contrary there is a decision of this court reported in 1983 (1) ARC 331 Punjab National Bank Vs. Sugan Chandra and another which lays down that the limitation for filing revision before the District Judge is 30 days as provided under Section 25 of the Act whereas in cases which are decided by the District Judge or Additional District Judge in exercise of powers of Small Causes Court a revision would lie before the High Co