Case: Thakur Birendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &amp; Others

2. The facts are as follows : The appellant was a Sardar and a Jagirdar in the former Gwalior State. His Jagir known as Fehari Jagir was resumed by the State on December 4, 1952, under the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, 28 of 1951. He received a memorandum from the Jagir Commissioner on February 23, 1958, regarding the compensation payable to him under Section 13 of the Act in respect of the resumption of his Jagir. On February 24, 1958 he applied to the Jagir Commissioner for a copy of the judgment. The memorandum received by him gave the total amount of compensation determined and the deductions to be made therefrom. It did not contain the data forming the basis of the calculations nor did it show how the authority disposed of the appellants claim to compensation and made its own computation. At the hearing, a copy of the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner running into twenty-three pages was handed up to us giving full details of the claim and showing how the same were dealt with for fixing the amount payable to the appellant.3. It appears that the application of the appellant for a copy of the judgment was returned to him on March 11, 1958 with an endorsement that the same could be had on payment of fees. On the very next day the appellant applied for a copy of the judgment after paying the fees mentioned and a copy of the judgment was given to him on March 18, 1958. The appellant preferred his appeal to the Board of Revenue on June 2, 1958. As already stated, the Board did not go into the merits of the case holding the appeal to be barred by time under the provisions of Section 29 of the Act.

Reasoning:
These sections go to show that unless excluded by the Jagirs Act or Ryotwari Act, Section 12 of the Limitation Act would be applicable to appeals filed before the Board of Revenue under any of these Acts.7. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Brijraj Singh v. The Board of Revenue and Another (Misc. Civil Case No. 22/1962, decided on 18-3-1963) that the expression "principles of limitation" in Section 149(2) mentioned above should be construed as extension of the period of limitation. For the reasons given above, we are in agreement with the said conclusion of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In our view, the word principle therein was inserted due to inept or careless drafting and what was meant was "period" and not principles.8. Even if we were to read the Statute as it is, the principle of the Limitation Act is to dismiss a suit, appeal or application if filed beyond time but also to extend the time for filing an appeal if the delay is explained. That principle is clearly capable of extension in the present case.Even if we were to read the Statute as it is, the principle of the Limitation Act is to dismiss a suit, appeal or application if filed beyond time but also to extend the time for filing an appeal if the delay is explained. That principle is clearly capable of extension in the present case.As appears for the order, dated September 28, 1961 the Board of Revenue refused to entertain the appeal on the ground of limitation without considering the question as to whether the appellant had made out a case for condonation of delay, if any. In our view, the Board of Revenue had not acted judicially in throwing out the appeal. The High Court was therefore not right in upholding the order of the Board of Revenue which ignored the provisions of Sections 34 and 149(2) of the Ryotwari Act and the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act. A sounder view of the law was taken by another Division Bench of the same High Court in Brijraj Singhs case noted above.If Sections 34 and 149(2) were applicable to the facts of the case before the Board of Revenue and we hold to that effect, the time spent in obtaining a copy of the judgment forming the basis of giving the reasons of the decision should have been excluded in computing the period of 90 days under Section 29 of the Jagirs Act. The appellant was not guilty of any laches in his appeal to the Board of Revenue. He applied for a copy of the judgment of the Jagir Commissioner on the day next after communication to him of the order of the Jagir Commissioner. Even if the application was unaccompanied by any fees prescribed for the purpose, the Board of Revenue should have taken this fact into consideration before holding the appellants appeal to be out of time. If the application for the copy of the judgment made on the 24th February was in order, the appeal was in time. Even if the time taken in obtaining the copy of the judgment be reckoned from the 12th March to 18th March, 1958, the appellant was out by two days only in filing the appeal to the Board of Revenue. If the 1st of June 1958 which happened to be a Sunday be left out of consideration, the appellant was out by one dayis clear form the language of Section 34 that in hearing an appeal under the Ryotwari Act the Board must guide itself by the provisions of the Limitation Act in force for extension and computation of the period of limitation. It would appear that Section 149(2) was aimed at giving a similar guideline to the Revenue Officer. To give the said interpretation to Section 149(2) it is necessary to read "extension of the principles of limitation" occurring therein as "extension of the period of limitation" for otherwise the section would be devoid of any meaning. The general principles of limitation are those contained in the Limitation Act of 1908 which were in force at the date when the appeal was filed before the board of Revenue. Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, laid down that subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 25 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made, after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the First Schedule was to be dismissed although limitation had not been set up as a defence. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1908 an appeal could be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor when the appellant satisfied the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring or making the application within such period. Under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Actany special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed therefor by the First Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply, as if such period were prescribed therefor in that Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by the special or local