JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. -- The Stamp Reporter while passing the instant revision has reported the period of limitation as 90 days. 2. The instant civil revision has been filed under Section 25 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Ayodhya Prakaran acting as Judge Small Causes Court, Lucknow in S.C.C. Suit No. 21 of 2009 (Ishwar Nath Kappor & another Vs. The Pioneer Urban Cooperative Bank Limited & another). 3. The Court vide order dated 17.7.2013 had called for a fresh report from the Stamp Reporter on the point of limitation. 4. The Registry vide report dated 25.7.2013 has submitted that the Apex Court in the case of Udai Bhan Gupta Vs. Hari Shanker Bansal and others; 1983 (1) LCD 322 has observed that period of limitation in S.C.C. Revision before the High Court should be 90 days, as such, the period of limitation in S.C.C. Revisions before the High Court have been given as 90 days. 5. Mr. Pritish Kumar, learned counsel for respondent has taken the objection that the period of limitation in S.C.C. Revisions before the High Court shall be 30 days only and it cannot be 90 days. 6. There appears to be some confusion in the minds of Registry in this regard, as such, it is necessary to decide this issue as to whether the period of limitation in S.C.C. Revisions before the High Court would be 30 days or 90 days. 7. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 under 25 provides period of limitation as 30 days for filing revision of decrees and orders of courts of small causes. Section 25 for convenience is reproduced below: "25. Revision of decrees and orders of Courts of Small Causes.- The District Judge, for the purposes 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. 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." 8. From the reading of the aforesaid provision it is clear that the power of revision conferred on the District Judge as well on the High Court is one and the same. The proviso to Section 25 provides that in relation to any case decided by District Judge or Additional District Judge exercising the jurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes, the power of revision shall vest in the High Court. 9. In the case of Udai Bhan Gupta (supra), the Apex Court had raised doubts with respect to period of limitation in the S.C.C. Revisions filed in High Court, however, the Apex Court had not decided the said issue as in paragraph 2 of the judgment, the Apex Court had categorically observed as under: "2........................................................................................................ we leave the point to be considered on an appropriate occasion." 10. The issue of limitation in S.C.C. Revisions before High Court has been considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of District Manager, Food Corporation of India Vs. Yans Prasad Jain and another; 1983 (9) ALR 630 wherein the aforesaid question was referred by the learned Single Judge for authoritative pronouncement by the Division Bench. The question as framed by the Division Bench is reproduced below: "The question is whether the period of limitation for filing a revision under Section 25 Small Cause Courts Act by an aggrieved party before the High Court is 30 days or 90 days." 11. The Division Bench considering the aforesaid question at length has held that an aggrieved party can file a revision before the High Court by an application made within 30 days of the date of the order. If, it is filed beyond this period, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act will lie irrespective of the stage at which the fact of delay comes to light. The operative portion of the judgment on reproduction reads as under: "In our opinion, an aggrieved party can file a revision before the High Court by an application made within 30 days of the date of the order. The operative portion of the judgment on reproduction reads as under: "In our opinion, an aggrieved party can file a revision before the High Court by an application made within 30 days of the date of the order. If, it is filed beyond this period, an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act will lie irrespective of the stage at which the fact of delay comes to light. If the delay is in a particular case, not condoned application in revision will have to be dismissed even where the record has been summoned at the instance of such party. The Full Bench decision in Rama Kant Singh (supra) is distinguishable. There Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act did not confer any right on a party. It provided power of revision to the Director. Section 25 S.C.C. Act confers a right of revision on a party. Of course, this does not affect the suo motu power of the Court. But for the invocation, a party has no right to be heard. Let the papers of this case be laid before the learned Single Judge with this opinion." 12. As such, I am of the considered view that the period of limitation for filing S.C.C. Revisions under Section 25 Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 before the High Court shall be 30 days. 13. The Registry is directed to furnish fresh report in the light of the observations made above. 14. List/put up this case on Monday i.e. 05.08.2013, as fresh. 15. The Registrar, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow shall circulate a copy of this order to all concerned. A notice in this regard shall also be circulated for the knowledge of learned Advocates.