JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, J. - One Ghana Naik filed an application u/s 9(1)(a) of the Orissa Tenants Relief Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), alleging that he was a Sanja tenant under the landlords (Petitioners) in respect of the disputed land with an area of 20 decimals in Plot No. 1341 in village Khaladi and that the landlords forcibly reploughed the land on 23-7-1962. He accordingly prayed that his right as Sanja tenant be declared and an injunction be issued against the landlords for not interfering with his possession and for other reliefs. The landlords denied Sanja tenantship. According to them, the opposite party was not in any manner connected with the disputed land either as a Bhag tenant or as Sanja tenant and that there was no occurrence on 23-7-1962. It was further alleged that as Ghana Naik restored the seedlings on the disputed land, they had filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate where he was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 60/-. 2. All the three Courts below have concurrently found that Ghana Naik was in possession of the disputed land as a Sanja tenant. Though no question of limitation was pleaded in the written statement, in all the three Courts the landlords advanced a plea of limitation on the basis of Section 9(1)(a), Proviso of the Act. All the Courts below have rejected this plea. The landlords have filed the civil revision. 3. The only point raised by Mr. Misra is whether the application of the tenant is barred by limitation. 4. Section 11-A(6) confers a jurisdiction on this Court to entertain a civil revision against the order of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner. It runs thus: The High Court may on any question of law raised in an application for revision by any person aggrieved by an order of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner under Sub-section (4) or under Sub-section (5) filed within sixty days from the date of the said order revise the same and confirm, reverse or modify the said order according as the Court thinks proper. 5. The question of limitation is based on Section 9(1)(0), Proviso. 5. The question of limitation is based on Section 9(1)(0), Proviso. It runs Section (9)(1) Any dispute between the tenant and the land lord as regards (a)tenant's possession of the land on the first day of July, 1954 or at any time thereafter and his' right to the benefits under this Act shall be decided by the Collector on the application of either of the parties: Provided that such application shall be filed before the Collector in the prescribed manner within sixty days from the date on which the dispute arises or from the date of the passing of this Act, whichever is later. In this case, there was a dispute regarding tenant's possession of the land and his rights to the benefits under the Act. The short question is when this dispute arose? 6. According to Mr. Misra, this dispute arose on 8-6-1962 and not on 23-7-1962 as mentioned in the tenant's application. On a perusal of the written statement, it is clear that the land. A lords did not join issue on this question. They did not say that the dispute was on 8 6-1962 and the application dated 20.8-1962 filed 60 days after 8-6.1962 was barred by time. Mr. Misra was permitted to take me through the evidence There is absolutely no evidence that the dispute arose on 8-6-1902. Mr. Misra placed reliance on a judgment of the criminal Court showing that with reference to an occurrence on 8-6-1962, the tenant was convicted. Even the judgment of the criminal Court is not clear that the incident related to the suit land. It is not the function of Courts to have a roving inquiry into the question of limitation by picking up evidence from here and there. If there was any question of limitation, a clear averment to that effect should have-been made and necessary evidence both in examination and cross-examination-could have been made available in support of the case that the dispute arose on 8-2-1961. Neither the landlords nor the tenant in their deposition made such a clear statement. In the absence of pleadings and of clear statements in the deposition, it would he doing great injustice to the tenant to go into the question of limitation and hold that the application was barred by time. Neither the landlords nor the tenant in their deposition made such a clear statement. In the absence of pleadings and of clear statements in the deposition, it would he doing great injustice to the tenant to go into the question of limitation and hold that the application was barred by time. The Courts below exercised their jurisdiction illegally in entertaining such an objection advanced by the landlords to throwaway the application of the tenant for protection. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed