JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This Full Bench has been constituted by senior-most Member' Chairman, Board of Revenue, U.P., by his order dated December 1, 1981 on reference made by Mr. R.S. Sharma, Member by his order dated November 12, 1981. Following question was referred for decision by Full Bench by Mr. R.S. Sharma :- "Whether in view of the provisions of Section 341 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act Article 131 or Article 137 of the Schedule of Limitation Act should govern the institution of revisions before the Board." 2. We have heard the learned counsel of Bar as amicus curae and the counsel for the applicant Mr. Dabas. 3. It has been argued by Mr. H.C. Rajbanshi Advocate who was supported by Mr. T.S. Dabas; that no provision for limitation has been made for tiling the revision in the Board and 90 days limitation was being followed as provided for second appeals as a matter or convention but after amendment of the Limitation Act in 1963 Article 137 being the residuary Article is applicable and 3 years' limitation should be applied as no provision has been made for filing revision specially under the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act or Rules. Reliance been placed on 1971 A.W.R. page 506, 1980 R.D. 42, 1972 Alld. 504, 1972 A.W.R. page 595, 1942 Oudh page 340, A.I.R. 1980 J and K. page 76, A.I.R. 1957 Pat. page 16, 1942 Patna page 251, 1942 A.I.R. 1976 Bhopal page 16, A.I.R 1916 Raj. page 191, A.I.R. 1953 Cal page 513, 1952 Kutch page 31, A.I.R. 1950 Assam page 6. 4. It was argued by Mr. Sankathe Rai, Advocate that no limitation has been provided for filing revision either under the Land Revenue Act or U.P. Z.A and L.R. Act and Rules. The convention of 4 months limitation or 90 days plus time taken for obtaining copies should be the limitation for filing the revision to the Board either under U.P. Land Revenue Act or under U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act cases; that Article 137 of the Limitation Act is not applicable as has been held in A.I.R. 1969 SC page 1335. 5. It was argued by Mr. 5. It was argued by Mr. B.R. Paul, Advocate that no limitation for filing revision was made under U.P. Tenancy Act, Rule 339 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules adopted certain provisions of the U.P. Tenancy Act, therefore, in view of Section 275 of U.P. Tenancy Act read with Scheduled that Act, item No. 9 of Group F and Rule 182 read with Rule 339 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules together with paras 185 to 197 of the Revenue Court Manual no provision of limitation has been provided for filing revisions to the Board and it will not be advisable to follow conventional 4 months limitation as held in some stray cases when there is actually no limitation for invoking revisional jurisdiction of the Board; that Article 131 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to Special Act Cases as it is applicable only to the cases in under Criminal Procedure Code and Civil Procedure Code and Article 137 of the Limitation Act is not applicable as has been held by the Supreme Court and in the alternative only Article 137 of the Limitation Act if the above arguments do not find favour, should be applied. 6. Section 275 of the U.P. Tenancy Act provided for revisional jurisdiction of the Board 4th schedule of that Act Group F Serial 9 provided no limitation regarding revision either by the Board or by the Hon'ble High Court under Section 275 and 276 of that Act. Thus there was no limitation provided for filing revision to the Board under U.P. Tenancy Act. 7. Section 341 of Act I of 1951 runs as follows: - "341. Application for certain Acts to the proceedings of this Act: - Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Act, the provisions of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1970, the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Limitation Act. 1963 including Section 5 thereof shall apply to the proceedings under this Act." 8. Rule 339 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules runs as follows: - "339. (1) Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under the Act the provisions of Sections 256, 261, 273, 274, 277 to 282 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 shall apply to the suits and proceedings specified in Schedule II of the Act and appeals, revisions and reviews arising therefrom. (1) Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under the Act the provisions of Sections 256, 261, 273, 274, 277 to 282 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 shall apply to the suits and proceedings specified in Schedule II of the Act and appeals, revisions and reviews arising therefrom. (2) in respect of the suits or proceedings mentioned in sub-rule (1) the first appeal shall lie within thirty days of the date of the decree or order appealed against and the second appeal, if any, shall lie within ninety days of the dale of the decree or order passed by the court of first appeal." 9. It will be seen that rule 339(1) aforesaid specifically does not mention Sections 275 and 276 of U.P. Tenancy Act and sub-section (2) does not provide any limitation tor tiling revision. Thus it is clear that no period has been prescribed for filing revision to the Board of Revenue, either under Act of 1951 or under its rules and as has been mentioned above that no limitation was provided for filing revision to the Board or to the High Court under U.P. Tenancy Act under Sections 275 and 276 of that Act as provided by Schedule 4 of that Act Group F Serial 9. 10. Article 131 of Limitation Act runs as follows: - Description of application Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 181. To any court for the exercise of its powers of revision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Ninety days The date of the decree or order or sentence sought to be revised. This Article is applicable only to the revision either under C.P.C. or under Cr.P.C. and is not applicable to revisions under other Acts and is certainly not applicable to revision applications under Act I of 1951. 11. Article 181 of the Old Limitation Act was the residuary Article like Article 137 of the amended Limitation Act by amendment of 1968. They run as follows: - Description of application Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run Art. 181 of the Old Limitation Act: - Application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule or by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Three years When the right to appeal accrues. They run as follows: - Description of application Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run Art. 181 of the Old Limitation Act: - Application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule or by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Three years When the right to appeal accrues. Description of application Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run Art. 137 of the New Limitation Act: - Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this division 3 years When the right to apply accrues. 12. It has been a convention in almost all the Hon'ble High Courts of India to read word C.P.C. also in Old Article 131 of the Limitation Act with an object to provide 90 days limitation for filing revisions under the C.P.C. and in some High Courts one year's limitation was considered to be reasonable time for filing revision applications beyond which sufficient cause and reasonable explanation was required to be given for filing revision application beyond one year and it appears that following the said reasoning's, in Land Revenue Act eases the Board also tried to provide conventionally 120 days limitation for filing revision applications. By efflux of time mostly 90 days limitation was adhered to, by the Hon'ble High Court for filing revisions which was the limitation for second appeals and thus a convention in the Board had also been made for riling revision applications within 90 days from the date of the order. Although no limitation was provided for filing revision application under U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, or U.P. Tenancy Act. In the above respect we may conveniently refer to Thakur Chandra Pratap Singh v. Thakur Bindeshwari Prasad Singh and another, A.I.R. 1942 Oudh 340; Mahant Goswami Krishnadevanand v. Mahant Kapildeo Ramji, A.I.R. 1943 Pat. 250; Bhuralal and another v. Kasim and others, A.I.R. 1950 Ajmer 1; Sampatlal Keshan and others v. Bali Prasad Shah and others, A.I.R. 1950 Assam 6; Peraj Poojan v. Bhansali Bhimji Kheraj and another, A.I.R. 1952 Kutch 31; Nani Lal De and others v. Tirthalal De and others, A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 513; Shah Mulchand and Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. Salem, A.I.R. 1953 SC 98; Ram Ganesh and others v. Sheo Mangal, 1971 R.D. 133 and Umarao Singh v. Bagho, etc., 1958 R.D. 198. 13. 513; Shah Mulchand and Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. Salem, A.I.R. 1953 SC 98; Ram Ganesh and others v. Sheo Mangal, 1971 R.D. 133 and Umarao Singh v. Bagho, etc., 1958 R.D. 198. 13. In spite of no limitation provided for filing revisions either under Section 115 C.P.C. or under the U.P. Tenancy Act or under the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and Rules prior to amended Limitation Act of 1963 and even after it before certain pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, 90 days limitation was being adhered for filing revision application either under C.P.C. or under U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act and 120 days under U.P. Land Revenue Act in view of the pronouncement of 1971 R.D. 133 and the said conventional limitation were being followed as required by rule of prudence laid down by almost all of the High Courts of India as referred above. 14. Therefore, it will not be advisable to adopt no period of limitation for filing revisions to the Board as no such period has been prescribed under Act I of 1951 and its rules. Also because Article 137 of the New Limitation Act has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and subsequently even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be applicable to the applications under other Acts also and by a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court made applicable even to applications under the C.P.C. by adopting the old compensation of reading also work C.P.C. in Article 131 which was being read regarding old Article 131 of the C.P.C. 15. Application of Article 137 may or may not be doubted regarding applications under the C.P.C. as has been held by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court to be applicable to application under C.P.C., but it is certainly now doubtful, that Article 137 of the New Limitation Act is applicable to other Act cases as has beer, held by the Supreme Court over ruling its own decision in Town Municipal Counsel, Athani v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Hubli and others, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1335. It was held as follows: - "Article 137 of schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 docs not apply to applications under Section 33-C(2) of the industrial Disputes Act, so that no limitation is prescribed for such application." (It has been over-ruled) by 1977 S.C. p. 282. 16. It was held as follows: - "Article 137 of schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 docs not apply to applications under Section 33-C(2) of the industrial Disputes Act, so that no limitation is prescribed for such application." (It has been over-ruled) by 1977 S.C. p. 282. 16. In Chandradeo Pandey and others v. Sukhdeo Rai and others, A.I.R. 1972 Alld. p. 504 F.B. (H.C.). It was held as follows: - "Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1968 being a residuary Article must be construed ejusdem generis with other Articles dealing with applications and as most of other Articles deal with applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 137 should also be held to apply to applications under that Code. The application for substitution of heirs in a revision is an application under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, and hence the period of limitation for bringing the heirs of deceased opposite party in revision is three years under this Article." 17. In Sunni Central Waqf and others v. Khursheed Haider and others, 1971 A.W.R. p. 560. It was held as follows: - "Article 137 covers in its ambit application and objections under special laws or any other law - language or Art. 137 ought not to be interpreted narrowly so as to keep it confined to applications under C.P.C. There is no good reason why should the residuary Art. 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1968 be not held to cover in its ambit application and objection under the special laws or any other law and its language ought not to be interpreted narrowly so as to keep it confined to applications under C.P.C. there being no warrant for it in the phraseology of that Article or in the scheme of the schedule to the New Limitation Act." 18. In Shri Ram and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P., 1978 R.D. 274. It was held as follows:- "In the absence of any period of limitation for filing a revision under the provisions of U.P. Z.A. and L.R Act the Board of Revenue was not justified in dismissing the revision on the ground of limitation. In Shri Ram and others v. Board of Revenue, U.P., 1978 R.D. 274. It was held as follows:- "In the absence of any period of limitation for filing a revision under the provisions of U.P. Z.A. and L.R Act the Board of Revenue was not justified in dismissing the revision on the ground of limitation. In this view of the matter of the residuary Article 137 may be attracted in that case three years will be the limitation where no limitation has been prescribed for filing a revision under Section 333 the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act." 19. In The Kerala State Electricity Board Trivandrum v. U.P. Kuaheliumme, A.I.R. 1977 SC 282. It has been held as follows:- "The alternation of the division as well as the change in the collection or words in Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 compared with Article 131 of the 1908 Limitation Act shows that applications contemplated under Article 137 are not applications confined to the Code of Civil Procedure. In the 1908 Limitation Act there was no division between applications in specified cases and other application as in the 1963 Limitation Act. The words 'any other application', under Article 137 cannot be said on the principle of ejusdem generis to be applications under the Civil Procedure Code other than those mentioned in Part I of the third division. Any other application under Article 137 would be petition or any application under any Act. But it has to be an application to a court for the reason that Sections 4 and 5 of the 1963 Limitation Act speak of expiry of prescribed period when court is closed and extension of prescribed period if applicant or the appellant satisfies the court that who had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application during such period. Art. 137 will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a Civil Court. It is not confined to applications contemplated by or under the Code of Civil Procedure. A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1335 and A.I.R. 1974 Ker. 202, Overruled." 20. Art. 137 will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a Civil Court. It is not confined to applications contemplated by or under the Code of Civil Procedure. A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1335 and A.I.R. 1974 Ker. 202, Overruled." 20. Thus it is clear that; period of no limitation for filing revisions to the Board cannot be applied; that 90 days limitation also cannot be applied to the Board; that only 3 years limitation for tiling the revision applications to the Board under Act 1 of 1951 as provided by Art. 137 of the Limitation Act of 1963 is the only Limitation which can be applied as that Article is certainly applicable to other Acts as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1977 SC p. 282 mentioned above. 21. The above will have to be followed by the Board of Revenue. According to the precedents and propriety as has been laid down in Ram Jivan v. Phoola (dead) by L. Rs. and others, A.I.R. 1976 SC p. 844. Smt. Ram Piari v. Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad and others, 1972 A.W.R. (H.C.) p. 595. Fatima-ul-Hasna and others v. Baldeo Bahai and others, A.I.R. 1926 Alld. p. 204. Bankey Lal Babu and others, A.I.R. 1953 Alld. p. 747. Pitamberlal v. Chhabi Narain etc., 1952 R.D. 324. Lala Shri Bhagwan and another v. Ram Chand and another, A.I.R 1965 SC p. 1707. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. The State Transport Appellate (Tribunal), U.P. Lucknow and others, A.I.R. 1977 Alld. p. 1. Raghuraj Singh v. The Agricultural Income Tax Revision Board, Uttar Pradesh Allahabad and others, 1962 All. LJ 982. Sri Venkateshwar Rice Ginning and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. etc. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, A.I.R. 1972 SC p. 51. Karam Husain Mukhtar v. Mohammad Khalil, A.I.R. 1946 Alld. p. 509. Bishambhar v. U.P. State, 1980 R.D. 97. 22. In view of the above our answer to the question referred is that Article 137 of the Limitation Act of 1963 is applicable regarding limitation for revision applications to the Board of Revenue and not Article 131 of that Act. 23. Let the file be set to the Member concerned for disposal of restoration application of the revision application with our aforesaid findings.