Heard learned Advocate for the ap­pellant and gone through the papers. I find no reasons to condone the delay in the presenta­tion of the appeal and it is doubtful whether S. 5, Indian Limitation Act at all applies to such proceedings as provided under the rules of the Khasi States (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950. In my opinion, it does not. We are governed by R. 26 of the Khasi States X Administration of justice) Order, 1950 which says that an appeal shall lie within the sixty days of the date of decision exclusive of the time needed for obtaining a copy of the order appealed against to the High Court from any original or appellate decision of the Deputy Commissioner except in matters involving cus­tomary laws. In this case, the order appealed against is that of the Additional Deputy Com­missioner dated 2-4-51 and if the time taken for obtaining a copy of the order is taken into consideration, 6-6-51 is the last date on which ^this appeal ought to have been presented. Rule 34 of the Khasi States (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950 provides that except in so far as provided by these rules, the Indian Li­mitation Act, 1908 (Act 9 of 1908) shall not ap­ply to suits in which either or both parties are Khasis, Lushais or members of the backward tribes enumerated in the Thirteenth Schedule to the Government of India (Provincial Legisla­tive Assemblies) Order, 1936. Rule 36 makes no mention of the proceedings that are maintain­able in the High Court and I must accordingly hold that the appeal not being presented within the time prescribed by R. 26, it must be construed to be presented out of time and as such non-entertainable. The memorandum of appeal is therefore to be rejected as pre­sented out of time. (2) The learned Advocate for the appellant has further submitted that this appeal may be treated as a proceeding under R. 27 of the Khasi States (Administration of Justice) Order, 1950, but I find no substance in that prayer as it is not for this Court to call for the proceedings of the Subordinate Courts unless it is brought to the notice of this Court that there has been certain irregularity committed by the Court be­low which has caused failure of justice. The spirit of the Civil Procedure Code being that a revision is not competent when an appeal lies, I must hold that in this case to, an ap­peal being competent a revision would not lie. In this view, as well, this prayer has no sub­stance. (3) The result is that the application for ex­tension of time for registration of the appeal is re­jected and the memorandum of appeal is direct­ed to be returned to the appellant. It makes no order as to costs. The Rule is discharged. Rule discharged.