Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3308 (ALL)

Ravindra Kumar Agrawal v. Sachin Agrawal

2014-11-07

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Pankaj Mithal,J. This is a revision to the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order passed by the Small Causes Court. 2. The office has reported the revision to be beyond time by 35 days by taking the limitation for filing the revision to be 30 days. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionists has questioned the period of the limitation of 30 days for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court and has contended that the limitation is 90 days as per Article 131 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 inasmuch as no period for filing revision before the High Court has been provided under Section 25 of the Act and the limitation of 30 days provided therein is for a revision before the District Judge/Additional District Judge only. 4. Section 25 of the Act in its application to the State of U.P. reads as under : - "25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes.?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. [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 17 of 1966, sec.2 (w.e.f.29.06.1966)] Provided that in relation to any case decided by a District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes, the power of revision under this section shall vest in the High Court. [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 37 of 1972 sec. 3 (w.e.f.20.9.1972)]." 5. A bare reading of the above provision reveals that the limitation for taking cognizance of a revision by the District Judge against the order of small causes court is 30 days. However, it does not provide any time limit for filing revision before the High Court in cases decided by the District Judge or the Additional District Judge in exercise of jurisdiction of a Judge Small Causes Court. 6. However, it does not provide any time limit for filing revision before the High Court in cases decided by the District Judge or the Additional District Judge in exercise of jurisdiction of a Judge Small Causes Court. 6. Thus, the question is whether the period of limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court is 30 days or 90 days. 7. There are decisions of this court which holds that the limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court would be 30 days as has been provided in the aforesaid provision for filing a revision before the District Judge. 8. A learned Single Judge of Lucknow Bench of this court in Civil Revision No.97 of 2013 The Pioneer Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ishwar Nath Kapoor and another has held that the period of limitation for filing SCC Revision before the High Court under Section 25 of the Act is 30 days. 9. A similar view was expressed by the another Single Judge of Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court by its decision dated 25.09.2013 in Civil Revision (Defective) No.121 of 2013, Shiv Raj Enterprises Transport Crossing Lohar Bagh Vs. Virendra Kumar Jain and another and it was held that the limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act before the High Court is 30 days. 10. Earlier on a reference, the above controversy had gone before the Division Bench of this court in the case of District Manager, Food Corporation of India and others Vs. Yans Prasad Jain and another 1983 (1) ARC 595. The Division Bench answered the reference and held that a revision before the High Court under Section 25 of the Act can be filed within 30 days of the order. 11. On the contrary there is a decision of this court reported in 1983 (1) ARC 331 Punjab National Bank Vs. Sugan Chandra and another which lays down that the limitation for filing revision before the District Judge is 30 days as provided under Section 25 of the Act whereas in cases which are decided by the District Judge or Additional District Judge in exercise of powers of Small Causes Court a revision would lie before the High Court and the limitation for filing it would be 90 days. 12. 12. The controversy had reached the Supreme Court in the case of Udai Bhan Gupta Vs. Hari Shankar Bansal and another AIR 1984 SC 1469 . The Apex Court while dealing with the controversy on merits observed as under: - "Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act did not provide for a period of limitation for filing a revision petition to the High Court. Therefore, the limitation for filing a revision petition to the High Court against any order of the Small Causes Court would be governed by Article 131 of the Limitation Act of 1963 which provides a period of 90 days commencing from the date of the decree or order sought to be revised." It further went on to observe as under: - "But then a proviso was subsequently added to Section 25, to clarify the position that where the power of Court of Small Causes is conferred on a District Judge or Additional District Judge, revision petition would lie to the High Court. The Legislature was aware that the period of limitation for such a revision would be governed by Article 131 and no separate specific period of limitation need be prescribed." 13. However, in the end the Supreme Court despite disapproving the view taken by the High Court that the limitation for filing the revision before it would be 30 days left open the point to be considered on a more appropriate occasion. 14. Following the above decision of the Supreme Court in Udai Bhan Gupta (Supra) and the decision of this court in Punjab National Bank (Supra), I myself in S.C.C. Revision Defective No.25 of 2014, Ravindra Kumar Jain Vs. Multani Mal Modi Degree College Society opined that a revision under Section 25 of the Act can be filed in the High Court within a period of 90 days of the order passed by the District Judge or the Additional District Judge in exercise of powers as a Judge Small Causes. 15. However, the aforesaid view was not accepted by another Judge of this court S.C.C. Revision Defective No.29 of 2014, Kamal Kumar Jain Vs. M/s O.V.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. decided on 21.03.2014. 15. However, the aforesaid view was not accepted by another Judge of this court S.C.C. Revision Defective No.29 of 2014, Kamal Kumar Jain Vs. M/s O.V.S. Builders Pvt. Ltd. decided on 21.03.2014. His Lordship was of the opinion that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Udai Bhan (Supra) is not a final verdict as the Supreme Court has left the controversy to be decided at some other appropriate occasion. Thereofre, the decision in Ravndra Kumar Jain (Supra) is not a good law and that the limitation for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 25 of the Act would be 30 days from the date of the order as is provided for filing revision before District Judge. 16. In view of above, there is a division Bench decision of this court holding the limitation to be 30 days for filing the revision before the High Court and the express opinion of the Supreme Court that it is 90 days apart from other decisions of the Single Judges. 17. In addition to the above, Section 17 of the Act provides for the applicability of C.P.C. to proceedings before Small Causes Court except those exempted by the Act or the C.P.C. 18. Order L Rule 1 C.P.C. provides for exclusion of certain provisions of C.P.C. to proceedings before Small Causes Court and it does not exclude Section 115 C.P.C. Therefore, the decision of the Small Causes Court would also have been revisable under Section 115 C.P.C. for which the limitation provided is 90 days in the absence of Section 25 of the Act. 19. Even otherwise ordinarily, all appeals, revisions etc. are filed before the High Court within 90 days of the order and judicial propriety demands for a uniform system. 20. In view of above conflicting decisions on the point of limitation for filing revision in the High Court under Section 25 of the Act, it appears appropriate that the question be resolved by a more authoritative pronouncement. 21. Therefore, in order to set at rest the controversy and to have a more authoritative pronouncement on the question, I am of the opinion that the matter be referred to a larger Bench. I accordingly, humbly direct that the papers be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for referring the following question for consideration by a larger Bench: 22. 21. Therefore, in order to set at rest the controversy and to have a more authoritative pronouncement on the question, I am of the opinion that the matter be referred to a larger Bench. I accordingly, humbly direct that the papers be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for referring the following question for consideration by a larger Bench: 22. Whether the limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 of the Act in the High Court against the order of the District Judge/Additional District Judge as a Small Causes Courts would be 30 days or 90 days? 23. In view of the reference made on the question of limitation and looking to the fact that the revision is reported to be beyond time by 35 days only which would have been in time had the limitation be 90 days, I propose to proceed to hear the revision on merits after condoning the delay, if any, in filing the same. 24. Office is directed to allot regular number to the revision. 25. As prayed put up on Thursday i.e. 13.11.2014.