vxzoky] lnL;-&;g fuxjkuh mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] fd'kux<+ckl ds }kjk izdj.k la[;k 96@08 esa ikfjr vkns'k fu.kZ; fnukad 5-11-2008 ds fo:) jktLFkku Hkw jktLo vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼la{ksi esa vf/kfu;e½ dh /kkjk 84 ds vUrxZr izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 2- bl izdj.k ds la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj ls gS fd vizkFkhZ;k la[;k 1 us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; mi[k.M vf/kdkjh fd'kux<+ckl esa izkFkhZx.k] vizkFkhZ la[;k 2 yxk;r 5 ds fo:) ,d vihy vUrxZr /kkjk 76 vf/kfu;e xzke iapk;r ck?kksMk }kjk bUrdky la[;k 100 xzke ck?kksMk fnukad 9-7-79 ds fo:) fnukad 30-6-08 dks izLrqr dh rFkk vihy ds lkFk ,d izkFkZuk-i= vUrxZr /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e izLrqr fd;kA vizkFkhZ;k la[;k 1 }kjk izLrqr vihy esa izLrqr mDr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 5 ij mHk; i{k dks lquus ds i'pkr fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us fuxjk/khu vkns'k fnukad 5-11-08 ls vizkFkhZ;k la[;k 1 eq- lqckuh dk izkFkZuk-i= vUrxZr /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e Lohdkj dj vihy izLrqr djus esa gq, foyEc dks dUMksu djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr mDr vkns'k fnukad 5-11-08 ds fo:) ;g fuxjkuh e.My ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ gSA 3- izdj.k esa vizkFkhZ;k la[;k 1 dh vksj ls fnukad 19-2-09 dks ,d izkFkZuk-i= vUrxZr /kkjk 151 bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k x;k gS fd izLrqr fuxjkuh la/kkj.k ;ksX; ugha gksus ls fujLr dh tkosA vizkFkhZ;k la[;k 1 dh vksj ls fnukad 19-2-09 dks izLrqr mDr izkFkZuk-i= ij mHk; i{k dh cgl lquh xbZ ,oa i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA 4- fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd vizkFkhZ;k la[;k 1 dk dFku gS fd izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls lkFk izLrqr izkFkZuk-i= vUrxZr /kkjk 5 fe;kn vf/kfu;e ij mHk; i{k dks lquus ds i'pkr ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 5-11-08 ds fo:) izLrqr dh xbZ gSA fuxjk/khu vkns'k vUrfje vkns'k gSA vr% ,sls vkns'k ds fo:) fuxjkuh la/kkj.k ;ksX; ugha gksus ls blh Lrj ij dkfcy fujLruh; gSA vr% fujLr dh tkosA 5- fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd izkFkhZx.k dFku gS fd izLrqr fuxjkuh ,MfeV dh tk pqdh gSA vr% fjdkMZ izkIr dj fuxjkuh dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fuLrkj.k fd;k tkosA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd fuxjk/khu vkns'k U;k;] fu;e ,oa fjdkMZ ds foijhr gksus ds dkj.k fujLruh; gS v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa i;kZIr dkj.k u gksrs gq, Hkh vizkFkhZ vihykUV dk izki= vUrxZr /kkjk 5 Lohdkj djrs gq, U;k; fu;e ,oa fjdkMZ ds foijhr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k vizkFkhZ;k vihykUV us xzke iapk;r ck?kksMk ds vkns'k fnukad 9-10-1979 dh vihy yxHkx 29 o"kZ ds ckn fnukad 30-6-08 ds ckn izLrqr dh gSA 6- cgl ds nkSjku fo}ku vfHkHkk"kdx.k }kjk izLrqr rdksZ ij euu fd;k x;k ,oa muds }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk voyksdu fd;kA 7- fuxjk/khu vkns'k fnukad 5-11-08 ds voyksdu ls ;g Li"V gS fd fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk xzke iapk;r ck?kksM+k ds vkns'k fnukad 9-10-79 ds fo:) vizkFkhZ;k@vihyk.V }kjk yxHkx 29 o"kZ ds foyEc ls fnukad 30-6-08 dks izLrqr vihy esa foyEc dh vof/k dks d.Mksu djus ckcr vizkFkhZ;k@vihyk.V ds izkFkZuk i= dks Lohdkj dj vihy izLrqr djus esa gq, foyEc dks dUMksu fd;s tkus dk fuxjk/khu vkns'k ikfjr fd;k gSA izdj.k esa miyC/k fjdkMZ ls ;g Li"V gS fd vihy izLrqr djus esa gq, foyEc ds mi'keu ¼condonation½ gsrq vihyk.V@vizkFkhZ;k }kjk ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 ds vUrxZr izLrqr izkFkZuk i= dks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vius foosdkf/kdkj dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Lohdkj dj vihy dks foyEc vof/k d.Mksu dj vUnj fe;kn ekuk gS rFkk vihy dk xq.kkoxq.k ij fu.kZ; fd;k tkuk 'ks"k gSA Li"V gS fd vihy izdj.k v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k vHkh fopkjk/khu gS rFkk fuxjk/khu vkns'k vUrfje vkns'k gSA gekjh lqfopkfjr jk; esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk muds le{k izLrqr vihy esa ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 ds vUrxZr izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ij ikfjr fuxjk/khu vkns'k fnukad 5-11-08 varfje vkns'k gS rFkk ,sls vkns'k ds fo:) vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 84 , ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj fuxjkuh e.My esa iks"k.kh; ¼maintainable½ gh ugha gSA D;ksafd ,slk vkns'k fuxjkuh ;ksX; ugha gS tSlk fd jktLo e.My dh fo}ku ,dyihB }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; 1984 vkjvkjMh i`"B 232 esa izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA mDr fu.kZ; dk iSjk 8 bl izdkj gS& On the other hand there are decisions wherein it has been held than an order passed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be interfered in revision. In the case of Abdul Gaffar vs. Gasvas Singh reported at AIR 1967 Patna 360 (FB.) (at page 361) it was held that where a competent Court has exercised its discretionary power of condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the said discretion cannot be interferred in revision merely because the Court did not state reasons for condoning the delay in the order passed by it. Likewise in the case of Thandhyuthapani Sthhuram vs. Chinathal (AIR 1914 Madras 149), it was held that an order refusing to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not revisable. Similar views were expressed in the case of Radhakrishna Films (P) Ltd. (AIR 1972 Kerala 122 at at page 124) following the decision in the case of Maindra Land and Building Corporation Ltd. ( AIR 1964 SC 1336 ). These decisions read with the decision of the learned Single Bench in the case of Chhater Singh, supra, make it clear that, in view of the imperative mandate of Section 3 of the Limitation Act that the time barred appeal cannot be allowed a fresh lease of life and is to be dismissed, discretion exercised by the first appellate Court in condoning the delay or refusing to condone the same, on an application made under Sections 5 of the Limitation Act, is not open to revision under Sec. 230 of the Act. jktLo e.My dh fo}ku ,dyihB }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; 2001¼2½ vkvkjVh i`"B 1014 esa ;g izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd%& Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 - Section 84-A - Revision - First appellate Court treated the appeal within limitation- It is an interim order u/S. 84-A- Revision is not maintainable. mijksDr foospu ds ifjizs{; esa v/khuLFk vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk muds le{k izLrqr vihy esa ifjlhek vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 5 ds vUrxZr izLrqr izkFkZuk-i= ij ikfjr fuxjk/khu fu.kZ; fnukad 5-11-08 ds fo:) izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr ;g fuxjkuh iks"k.kh; ¼maintainable½ ugha gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA 8- QyLo:i izkFkhZx.k }kjk izLrqr fuxjkuh iks"k.kh; ¼maintainable½ ugha gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA fu.kZ; [kqys U;k;ky; esa lquk;k x;kA