CR 61/09 State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Kanhaiyalal (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R In S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.61/2009 State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Kanhaiyalal Date Of Order :: 21st October, 2009 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. L.N. Boss, Government Counsel for petitioner-State. ........... By The Court :- This revision petition under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the petitioner-State against the judgment dated 1/2/2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Baran in Appeal No.40/2006 whereby the judgment and decree of compensation dated 15/7/2005 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Anta, District Baran in Civil Suit No.23/1999 has been affirmed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the point of admission and perused the impugned judgment. 3. It was inter alia contended that according to Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Irrigation Manual, limitation for claiming compensation is only one year whereas the present suit has been filed after about 2½ years from the date the cause of action accrued. 4. The above submission advanced by the CR 61/09 State of Rajasthan and another Vs. Kanhaiyalal (2) Government Counsel does not stand on merit since under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Irrigation Manual, the period of one year is for the claim presented before the Collector but in the instant matter plaintiff has not claimed compensation from Collector but filed a civil suit for compensation, therefore, the provisions of Limitation Act would apply and Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Irrigation Manual has no application in regard to such civil suit filed by the plaintiff for compensation. 5. The next submission of the Government Counsel is that both the courts below have not considered the evidence properly and on the basis presumption and assumption the suit has been decreed. 6. In this regard, suffice is to say that petitioner before this Court is in revision and the scope of revision is limited. Findings of fact cannot be re- appreciated in revision and no other illegality in the impugned judgment has been highlighted by the Government Counsel. I do not find any good reason to interfere in the findings of both the courts below. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be dismissed at the admission stage. 7. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. (J.R. Goyal),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. D62