"·r.TI.le"mr5.. •7ms.. .A.e;-.- .--.,, 1# Government of T.ravancore-Cochin represented by the Chief Secretary, T.rivand.rum. - Govindan "RS.man, residing at Chettiyarezbathu, U111pe.rkattu Idur-i, Theelara. Paluthy fr, ieezhal2oor Komalezhaethu +aithane.rum uri, ±an amnangala n Pfpthy. BY- Advocate Sb.ri K.P. Ab.rah.am. Fesondent : - Defendants • fi , r, t . \ Present:- "l-The Hon•ble the Chief Justice Mr~ K. T. Koshi and The Hon'#le r. Jstice C.A. Va1dialingam. A.a. No. 7 of' l955(E) • . 0.5. ±lo. 90 of 1951 of the t:a.velll.:a.ra District Court. i1ppellant; - Plaint i f'f~ t 2. G. Raman, District Sape.rintendent of Police, Kottayam from 1 Komalezhathu Valavada Veedu, KaithathelIB:um IEuri, Kannaangalam Pak2thy. f Respondent l by Government; Pleader hri K.i, Narayanan air. Respondent 2 by .Advocate Sh.ri C.H. Ku.ruvilla. l · This Appeal Suit having been finally heard on 20-6-1958, this con.rt on the same day delivered the following:- 3tJDGJ..·IiL _f"£ • The appeal a.rises out of a suit to set aside a Government Order armulling a nevenue sale. The sale took place on 27-11-1126 end though the District Collector declined to inte.rfe.r·e when defendant 2 applied be.fore him to set it aside on revision by defendant Government set aside the sale on 16-2-1949 (5-7-1124). ·The present suit to set aside the Government order was instituted on..ly on 6-9-1951 long after the statutory period of one yea.r prescribed by Section 51 of the Travancore Revenue Recovery Act(I of 68) - had elapsed. · The lower court dismissed the suit, but not on the g.round of limitation. Indeed the issue .relating to limitation (No. 7) was not pressed by the defendants and ti1.e lowe.r a:n:u:•t did not the.ref.'o.re .record any finding with respect to it. le are not however bound by the defendants waiving the plea; the plea _is one which cannot be ·; waived. The_ appeal must 'in the .result fail on this sl10rt groi.md. ~ .- But before dismissing it we should not f.'ail to mention that the p.resent plaintiff had f.'iled a .review bef.'ore Gove.rnment against their f -: ? ;- orde.r dated 16-2-1949 and tbat the order dismissing the .review as t. passed only on 20-1-1951. The suit is~ Within,one-yea.r -f'.rom , that date, but there is no statutory provision fo.r a .review and a· party cannot be allowed to extend the pe.riod of limitation by • \i seeking to .review o.rde.rs passed by competent autho.rity unde.r thei.r statutory pn:iom::¥: powe.rs. _The period of one year prescribed by Section 5l would become negatory if pa.rties a.re allowed to do that. e, hg le the.refo.re disn:r!:ss the appeal:j.. but make no o.rde.r for cos ts of the appeal as the defendants had abandoned the plea as to limita- ((€ _a+Jva }. Jet e Asst. Reistrar. , (True Copy). Sd/- K.T. Koshi, C.J., Sd/- C.A. Vaidialingam, J. ,· tion before the lower court. Parties ill therefore bear thei.r respective costs of the appeal. Orde.i:' accordingly. 20-6-1958.. .J