JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - Rustam Khan and others filed this revision application against order dated 11-1-1978 passed by S.D.O. Jhansi, in case under Rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules ordering ejectment and imposing damages. 2. The learned Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, by his order dated 25-2-78 has recommended to allow the revision application and to set aside the order of the lower court and to remand the case back to the lower court with the direction that it should remain stayed till the final decision of the declaratory suit. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 4. It was reported by the Lekhpal that Rustam Khan, Liyakat Khan and three others had trespassed over Gaon Sabha land plot no. 410 area 0.05 acres by constructing a house. The applicants had filed objections saying that originally the land belonged to Smt. Pyari Bahu who sold it to Asha Ram son of Malley, that Asha Ram had been in possession over the land in suit from whom it was purchased by the applicants and that the land did not belong to Gaon Sabha. 5. On 23-8-77 the trial court passed order staying proceedings and directed the revisionist to file declaratory suits within the period of 3 months, the applicants did not file the suit within the prescribed time and the impugned order was passed. 6. The learned Additional Commissioner found that three declaratory suits were filed on 2-2-78 by the applicants per copy filed before the learned Additional Commissioner. An affidavit was also filed that the delay in filing the suit had been caused by the death of Advocate's clerk to whom money and papers were entrusted for filing the suit. Copy of judgment of suit Nos. 143 of 77-78 consolidated with suit no. 144 of 77-78 (Rustam v. Asha Ram) and suit no. 145 of 77-76 (Mathura v. Asha Ram) under section 229-B dated 30-9-78 and extract of khatauni of 1386 to 1387 F. has also been filed to show that on 0.05 acres of the disputed area with boundaries. The applicants suit was decreed and some of them have been recorded on 0,02 as bhumidhars. 7. 145 of 77-76 (Mathura v. Asha Ram) under section 229-B dated 30-9-78 and extract of khatauni of 1386 to 1387 F. has also been filed to show that on 0.05 acres of the disputed area with boundaries. The applicants suit was decreed and some of them have been recorded on 0,02 as bhumidhars. 7. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that in view of the result of the regular suits filed by them the order of the trial court should be quashed regarding the land in dispute of which they have been declared to be bhumidhars and the proceedings should be dropped. 8. In reply, it was argued that as the suit was not filed within the prescribed period as provided under section 122-B (4-B) of Act I of 1951 the order of the trial court became final and that time cannot be extended. Therefore the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner should not be accepted. Reliance has been placed on Smt. Aziz Jahan Begum v. Sardar Singh, AIR 1955 All. 241 , Nand Lal v. Mst. Siddiquan, AIR 1957 All. 558 , Paras Nath Thakur v. Smt. Machini, 1960 SCR 271 . 9. In reply it was further argued that even if the argument advanced by the learned DGC (R) Jhansi in reply as above be taken to be correct the order of the trial court stands altered or reversed due to the decision of the above suit in favour of the applicants, the provision of section 144 CPC are applicable and the applicants should not be ejected from the area of which they have been declared to be bhumidhars in possession. 10. Sub-section (4-B) of section 122-B and sub-sections (4-DD) and (4-E) of that section run as follows :- * * * * The above provision of law make the order of the trial court final if the suit as required by sub-section (4-B) is not filed within the period of three months from the date of such order for filing that suit, it is clear that in the present case the suit was not filed within three months from the date of the order of the trial court directing the applicants to file required suit. The question crops in is whether that period of three months provided in sub-section (4-B) can be enhanced by any court or not. 11. The question crops in is whether that period of three months provided in sub-section (4-B) can be enhanced by any court or not. 11. Order 21 Rule 58 (2) (3) and (5) run as follows make the order passed under sub-rule (4) final if no suit is filed within prescribed period under sub-rule (4) of the said order. * * * * The period for filing the suit under present sub-rule (5) cannot be extended as its provisions are similar to the provisions of old Rule 63 of Order 21 as has been held in Smt. Aziz Jahan Begum v. Sardar Singh (supra) in which it was held as follows :- "The words, therefore, subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive must mean that if a suit was not filed then the relief which the objector could have obtained in a suit under Order 21 Rule 63 to defeat the decree-holder's claim would no longer be available to him." 12. It has been held in Nand Lal v. Smt. Siddiquan (supra) as follows :- "Under section 145 it is only the period which has been fixed or granted by the Court which can be enlarged and not the period which is fixed by the statute. A Court has, therefore, no jurisdiction to extend the period of fifteen days fixed by the Code in Or. 21, Rule 85. The mandatory provision of Order 21 Rule 85 which requires the Court to recall the property in case there is a failure to deposit the purchase money within fifteen days is a further reason for not extending that period. Even the inherent powers of the Court cannot be invoked for this purposes." 13. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the present case as it is applicable only to any appeal or any application rather than any application under any of the provisions of Order 21 of the CPC. 14. The declaratory suits of the plaintiff, although filed subsequently and not within the period of limitation of three months as provided by section 122-B (4-B) of Act 1 of 1951 were not barred by any law and its result cannot be Negatived by order under section 122-B although it has got the status of finality as provided under sub-section (4-E) of that Act. Because that Order stands varied or reversed by the judgment of the regular suit and its result is covered by the phrase "or otherwise" of section 144 (1) of the CPC substituted by U.P. amendment and the scope of old section 144 (1) of the CPO was not greater as words "in appeal, revision or otherwise" did not exist in the old section. The position of old Rule 63 of Order 21 and present sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule 58 is different because if no suit is filed under old rule 63 of Order or present sub-rule (5) of the said Order, the order passed becomes final and can not be varied or altered under the provisions of the CPC which is also the case regarding order passed under the provisions of section 122-B of Act I of 1951 but, as regular declaratory suits filed, irrespective of the suit not having been filed under section 122-B (4-E) of Act 1 of 1951, not challenging it is not barred by any provisions of law. Therefore in my considered opinion as a result of the regular suit, under the provisions of section 144 CPC the trial Court is required to grant relief by way of restitution or otherwise to the applicants and to pass any order i.e. they should not be ejected from the areas of which they have been declared to be bhumidhars in possession due to the result of the above three declaratory suits unless that result is varied in appeal or revision. Therefore in my considered opinion although this revision is not liable to be allowed and the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner cannot be accepted but the relief by way of restitution or otherwise passing any orders must be allowed to the applicants. 15. In view of the above this revision application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. The trial court is directed to grant relief by way of restitution or otherwise to the applicants who shall not be ejected from the area of which they have been declared to be bhumidhars in possession in the above said three regular suits till that judgment is not varied or reversed. The applicants shall also be granted relief regarding damages. 16. In view of the above the revision application is dismissed.