JUDGMENT

1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit brought in the revenue Court for arrears of Government revenue against defendant 1 on the allegation that the plaintiffs were the assignee of the assignee of the Government revenue and were entitled to recover the amount. Originally defendant 2, who was the heir of the original assignee of the Government revenue, had not been impleaded, but later, on his own application, he was made a party to the suit. The fact that the plaintiffs are the representatives of the original assignee of the Government revenue does not appear to have been seriously disputed. There was in any case no specific denial in the written statements. But it was pleaded that the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit. Defendant 1 further pleaded that he had in good faith made the payment of the Government revenue to defendant 2, Hakim Shyam Surdar Lal, while the latter denied the plaintiff's right to recover the amount, and also pleaded that the special Government orders, rules and regulations relating to this grant of revenue were against the plaintiffs, and the suit should be struck off. Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit. After the dismissal of the suit when the trial Court's office prepared the decree the name of Hakim Shyam Sundar Lal, defendant 2, was omitted from it. Accordingly in the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the decree Hakim Shyam Sundar Lal was not shown in the array of defendants. Later on the decree of the trial Court was amended and the name of Hakim Shyam Sundar Lal also added in it. The plaintiffs got the name of Hakim Shyam Sundar Lal substituted in the memorandum of appeal within 30 days of this amendment. The first ground on which the appeal has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court is that the plaintiffs had not made any formal application for an extension of time u/s 5, Limitation Act, and that, therefore, their appeal against Hakim Shyam Sundar Lal was beyond time. In our opinion the Court below has erred in exercising its discretion in this matter. The reason why Hakim Shyam Sundar Lal's name was omitted from the names of the respondents obviously was that his name did not find a place in the decree. He was impleaded later on within 30 days of the substitution of his name. We think that the lower Court should have allowed the defendant to get round the technical objection of the absence of a formal application for extension of time.

2. The second ground on which the lower appellate Court has dismissed the suit is that u/s 4, Pensions Act (23 of 1871), no civil Court can entertain any suit relating to any pension or grant of money or land revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government, except as provided in the Act. The lower Court admits that the suit was really filed in the revenue Court and not in the civil Court, but has come to the conclusion that in such cases an appeal lies to the District Judge as a civil Court, therefore, the learned Judge in appeal was sitting as a civil Court and his jurisdiction was, therefore, barred u/s 4, Pensions Act. Such an interpretation of the section would lead to this anomaly, that although no certificate of the Collector may be necessary while the suit is being tried by the revenue Court, a certificate would be necessary when the appeal is heard by the District Judge as a civil Court. In our opinion this cannot be the meaning of the section. Taking Section 4 literally, a civil Court is debarred from entertaining any suit, etc., and not debarred from entertaining any appeal. It would seem that if the suit had been filed in the revenue Court originally and the jurisdiction of that Court was not ousted, then the District Judge hearing the revenue appeal would be competent to dispose of the matter. We, therefore, think that the learned Judge has taken a wrong view on this point.

3. The third and the main ground on which the suit has been dismissed is that the grant of revenue was a pe