Badri Nath vs Dhani Ram

(1) This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned City Judge, Jammu, dated 17121975 vide which the application of the plaintiff

petitioner for bringing on record the legal representatives of Shri Jagan Nath, deceased, was dismissed.

(2) In a suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the plaintiff, an application was filed, after the death of the plaintiff, for bringing on

record his legal representatives to continue the suit. The learned City Judge dismissed that application on 17121975 Aggrieved, the legal

representatives of the plaintiff filed the revision petition in this Court on 2531976.

(3) A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the revision petition is timebarred and merits dismissal on

that account. Reference has been made to Rule 52 (2) of The Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1975, with a view to stress that since, the revision petition was filed after the expiry of more than 90 days the same was not maintainable. In reply Mr. J. L. Sehgal, learned counsel for the legal representatives/ petitioners has submitted that since no period of limitation has been fixed under the Limitation Act, the objection raised on behalf of the respondent has no merits.

(4) I have given my anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

(5) Rule 52 (2) of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Rules, 1975, provides as follows:

(2) No Civil revision petition shall be presented after ninety days from the date of the impugned order :

Provided that the Court may, on sufficient cause shown, condone the delay in presentation.

(6) Section 3 of the Limitation Act provides that every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made, after the period of limitation

prescribed thereof by the First Schedule shall be dismissed. In Schedule I, no period of limitation has been prescribed for the filling of a civil

revision petition. However, under Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, it is provided that limitation may also be prescribed by 'special' or 'local

Law' and in case limitation prescribed by the local or special law is different from the period prescribed therefore in Schedule I of the Limitation

Act, the limitation prescribed under the special or local law shall prevail and the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if the period prescribed under the special or the local law, was the one prescribed under the Schedule. In State Vs. G. S. Broca, A. I. R. 1978 J and K 65 a Division Bench of this Court held that the Rules framed by the High Court are 'special laws'. In this view of the matter, the limitation prescribed by Rule 52 (2) of the

High Court Rules for the filing of a revision petition shall be treated as if it is the period prescribed for the filing of the revision petition in Schedule I

to the Limitation Act and would bring into play Section 3 of the Limitation Act.

(7) Admittedly the revision petition in the instant case was filed after the expiry of ninety days from the date of the impugned order that is beyond

the period prescribed by Rule 52(2) of the High Court Rules, 1975, and as such it was beyond the limitation prescribed Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show the existence of any sufficient cause to condone the delay in the presentation of the petition. The preliminary

objection raised on behalf of the respondent therefore must prevail,

(8) The revision petition is accordingly held as barred by time and the same is hereby dismissed.