JUDGMENT P.N. Bakshi, J. - The Plaintiffs land-lords filed a suit for ejectment of the Defendants on the grounds inter alia that they were in arrears of rent; that they had made structural alterations, in the building causing substantial damage; that they had changed the nature of the tenancy; and that the alterations had diminished the utility of the building and hence they were liable to ejectment. 2. These allegations were denied by the Defendants on the ground inter alia that they had not made material alterations in the building and that the said alterations had not diminished its utility. The Court of the Judge Small Causes decreed the suit of the Plaintiff for possession and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 1955.16 paise, and also for Rs. 346/- as mesne profit and costs. The trial Court recorded findings of fact in favour of the Plaintiff on the issues arising in the case vide its judgment dated 12th December, 1980. 3. The instant revision was filed by the Defendants-applicants u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act read with Section 115 of the CPC on 11th March, 1981. This revision came up for hearing before me today. 4. Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Respondents has taken a preliminary objection to the effect that the revision is barred by limitation. He has submitted that for filing a revision against the judgment and decree of the Judge Small Causes the period of limitation prescribed is only 30 days; whereas the instant revision has been filed much later. This contention is opposed by Counsel for the Defendant-applicants, who has cited a Single Judge decision of this Court in support of his submission. This legal controversy is very material as it is bound to decide the fate of so many cases pending and which may be filed in future. I shall, therefore, discuss the question in detail. 5. Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act ran as follows: The High Court, for the purpose of satisfying itself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may call for the case and pass such order with respect there to as it thinks fit. In its application to the State of U.P. the above quoted Section 25 was amended by U.P. Act No. 70 of 1966. In its application to the State of U.P. the above quoted Section 25 was amended by U.P. Act No. 70 of 1966. The amended Section runs thus: The District judge, for the purpose of satisfying himself that a decree or order made in any case decided by a Court of Small Causes was according to law, may of his own motion, or on the application of an aggrieved party made within thirty days from the date of such decree or order, call for the case and pass such order with respect thereto as he thinks fit. It appears that lateron by U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act 37 of 1972, a proviso was added to Section 25 quoted above, which runs as follows: Provided that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Addl. District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes, the power of revision under this Section shall vest in the High Court. 6. Reading Section 25 as amended in the State of U.P. along with the proviso, there appears to be sufficient scope for the submission that the limitation for filing of a revision in the High Court against a decree or order passed by the Judge Small Causes would be thirty days, from the date of such decree or order. The applicants' Counsel, however, has cited before me a single Judge decision of this Court reported in Indraj Vs. Smt. Shanti and Others, AIR 1978 All 279 .That was a case under the Hindu Marriage Act. The limitation of filing a First Appeal was provided u/s 28(4) of that Act was 30 days. There was no provision under the Hindu Marriage Act for the filing of a second appeal in the High Court, the learned Judge of this Court applied Section 100 of the CPC to such proceedings and held on its basis that the limitation for filing a second appeal in the High Court would be 90 days from the date of the order of decree appealed against. In the words of the learned Judge " the second-appeal would lie on the grounds provided for in Section 100 CPC and the limitation would be the same as for any other second appeal filed u/s 100 Code of Civil Procedure, the limitation for filing the second appeal u/s 100 CPC is 90 days and not 30 days". 7. In the words of the learned Judge " the second-appeal would lie on the grounds provided for in Section 100 CPC and the limitation would be the same as for any other second appeal filed u/s 100 Code of Civil Procedure, the limitation for filing the second appeal u/s 100 CPC is 90 days and not 30 days". 7. In my opinion, this Single Judge decision is distinguishable and can not afford any guidance for the decision of the question in controversy in the present revision. Under the Small Cause Courts Act, as amended in U.P. the details of which has been quoted above, a clear period of limitation of 30 days has been prescribed for filing a revision u/s 23 of the Act before the High Court. Therefore, the question of application of the provisions of CPC in a case arising out of proceedings under the Small Cause Courts Act does not arise. That Act having made specific provision for the filing of the revision, there is no justification in law for importing the provisions of the CPC for the purpose of extending the period of limitation. 8. A subsidiary argument has been raised that amendment of Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act referred to the period of 30 days limitation to those cases where the revision had been filed before the District Judge and not before the High Court. I am afraid this submission is not tenable. The proviso to Section 25 clearly lays down that in relation to any case decided by the District Judge or Addl. District Judge, the power of revision under this Section would vest in the High Court. It is a cardinal principle of interpretation of Statutes that a proviso has got to be read along with the principal Section. The phraseology of the proviso is very clear and unambiguous and there is no reason why the simple canons of interpretation of Statutes should not be followed. As such in my opinion, the thirty days rule of limitation would apply to a revision filed in the High Court u/s 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. 9. Counsel for the applicants made a prayer that he may be granted time to file an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. It is now too late in the day to concede to such a prayer. 9. Counsel for the applicants made a prayer that he may be granted time to file an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. It is now too late in the day to concede to such a prayer. Moreover the facts on the record indicate that even though the judgment of Court below was delivered on 18th December'80, the application for certified copy of the judgment and decree was applied for on 19-2-1981 and received on the same date i.e. to say even the application for certified copy was applied for by the applicants after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing a revision. The suit of the Plaintiffs has been filed 10 years ago in 1973. He has been litigating for this long period and has ultimately succeeded in obtaining the decree which has become final inter parties in the absence of revision having been filed within the period prescribed by law. In these circumstances a valuable right has now accrued to the Plaintiff Respondents and it would not be just and fair if after a lapse of 2-1/2 years, after the institution of the revision in this Court, time is now granted for filing an application for extension of time. 10. The net result of the aforesaid decision is that the revision filed by the Defendants applicants in this Court is barred by limitation and as such it has to be dismissed; but in the circumstances of the case it is fit and proper that there should be no order as to the costs of the revision.