TARE, C. J. : - This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, directed against the order of the Board of Revenue, dated 26-07-1972 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/10), holding that the petitioner could not be given the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

2. The question whether the lands held by the petitioner exceeded the ceiling limit as per the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, (No. 20 of 1960), came up for consideration before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadarwara acting as Competent Authority. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order, dated 26-5-1965 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/1). It is not necessary to know the details of the said order as we are not concerned with the merits of the case, but only with the question of limitation.

3. Against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner purported to file an appeal before the Collector, who, vide, order dated 15-9-65 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/3), dismissed the appeal and thereby upheld the order of the Competent authority.

4. Against the appellate order of the Collector, the petitioner filed a second appeal before the Commissioner. The said appeal came to be decided by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, who, by order, dated 7-7-1966 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/5), dismissed the appeal. Against the said second appellate order, the petitioner filed a revision before the Board of Revenue. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue, by order, dated 27-1-1968 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/7) remanded the case to the Competent authority with a direction that it should direct the applicant to apply to the Collector for validation of the transfer proceed to take further action in the light of the order that the Collector may pass on merits.

5. In pursuance of the remand order passed by the Board of Revenue, the Sub-Divisional Officer passed a fresh order on 9-7-1969 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/8). At this stage it was realised by the petitioner that the original order of the Competent authority, dated 26-5-1965, was appealable before the Board of Revenue, as per S. 4, sub-section (3) of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960. Accordingly, an appeal was filed before the Board of Revenue along with an application for extension of time under S. 5 read with S. 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue, by order, dated 26-7-1972 (Petitioner's Annexure-A/10) held that the petitioner could not be given the benefit of S. 14 of the Limitation Act.

6. At the outset, we may observe that it is only Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which can be invoked by a party in the matter of extension of time regarding an appeal filed beyond limitation. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to suits only, although its principle has been applied by law Courts to appeals, but the resort is necessarily to Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

7. The scheme of the M. P. Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, is rather curious. Section 4 of the Act relates to transfers or partitions made after the publication of the bill, but before the commencement of this Act.

Ordinarily, if one looks into the description of the different Sections, none will have an idea unless one studies Section 4 of the Act minutely, that sub-section (3) of the said Section provides for an appeal against the order of the Competent Officer directly before the Board of Revenue. As regards the appeals in general, the provision is made in Section 41 of the Act, which is included in Chapter VII. Section 41 of the Act makes every order of a revenue officer or Competent authority under the Act appealable according to Section 44 (1) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, except where the provisions of this Act provide otherwise. Therefore, if one is not very careful and if one does not go through all the provisions of the said Act, one is likely to be misled that the provision regarding an