Rajasthan High Court
J C Textile Ajmer vs Magan Chand And Ors ... on 6 September, 2023
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:21469]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 147/2016
1.J.C. Textile, Subhash Colony, Madanganj Kishangarh, District
Ajmer.
2.Jagdish Chand Sarda son of Late Shri Pankaj Lal Sarda,
resident of Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Defendants
Versus
1.Magan Chand son of Shri Inder Chand Vaid, resident of 23,
Janakpuri-II, Imali Phatak, Jaipur through his LR's:-
I.Smt. Sunder Devi wife of Late Shri Magan Chand,
II.Archit adopted son of Late Shri Magan Chand, adopted mother
Smt. Sunder Devi wife of Late Shri Magan Chand,
III.Smt. Shashi daughter of Late Shri Magan Chand, wife of Shri
Pradeep Kumar Srimal
All are residents of 23, Janakpuri Imali Wali Phatak, Jaipur.
----Plaintiffs
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Chaturvedi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
06/09/2023
This civil revision petition is preferred against the order
dated 27.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
Kishangarh, District Ajmer (for brevity "the learned appellate
Court") in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.9/2015 whereby, the
appeal preferred by the petitioners/appellants/defendants (for
short "the defendants") against the order dated 29.04.2015
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer
(hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Civil Suit
No.107/2002 determining the arrears of rent under Section 13(3)
of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950
(for brevity "the Act of 1950"), has been dismissed being barred
by limitation.
[2023:RJ-JP:21469] (2 of 4) [CR-147/2016]
The relevant facts in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs
(for short "the plaintiffs") filed a suit for eviction and arrears of
rent against the defendants wherein, the learned trial Court, vide
order dated 29.04.2015, determined arrears of rent under Section
13 (3) of the Act of 1950. The aforesaid order was assailed by the
defendants by way of an appeal under Section 22 of the Act of
1950 which has been dismissed by the learned appellate Court
vide order dated 27.07.2016 being time barred.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the defendants,
inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section
22 of the Act of 1950, would submit that for an appeal against an
order passed by a Court under the Act, i.e., an intra-court appeal,
the limitation is of 30 days as provided under Article 116 (b) of
the Limitation Act, 1963 (for brevity "the Act of 1963") and not 15
days as stipulated in sub-section (3) of Section 22 wherein, an
appeal is provided against an order passed by the Magistrate to
the District Magistrate or such authority as the State Government
may from time to time appoint in that behalf. He submits that
since, the instant appeal was preferred within the period of 30
days, the learned appellate Court erred in dismissing the same
treating it to be barred by limitation applying sub-section (3) of
Section 22. He, therefore, prays that the revision petition be
allowed, the order dated 27.07.2016 be quashed and set aside
and the matter may be remanded back to the learned appellate
Court to decide the appeal on its merit.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs would not dispute the
aforesaid legal position.
Heard. Considered.
[2023:RJ-JP:21469] (3 of 4) [CR-147/2016]
Section 22(1) of the Act of 1950 provides for an appeal
against every decree or order passed by a Court under this
Act to the Court to which the appeals ordinarily lie from original
decrees/orders passed by such former Court. Article 116 (b) of the
Act of 1963 provides for a limitation of thirty days for such intra-
court appeal. Section 22 (3) provides for an appeal against an
order passed by a Magistrate to the District Magistrate or such
other authority as the State Government may appoint for which
the limitation prescribed therein is fifteen days. Thus, there are
two distinct and independent provisions of appeal under Section
22 of the Act of 1950; one against an order/decree by the Court
for which limitation is 30 days and another, as against an order by
the Magistrate for which limitation provided is fifteen days. The
limitation of fifteen days as prescribed under sub-section (3) of
the Section 22 of the Act of 1950 cannot be made applicable to
the appeal filed under Section 22 (1) of the Act of 1950.
In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
learned appellate Court erred in dismissing the appeal preferred
by the defendants under Section 22(1) of the Act of 1950 against
the order dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned trial Court
treating it beyond the limitation of fifteen days.
Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated
27.07.2016 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded
back to the learned appellate Court to decide the Civil
Miscellaneous Appeal No.9/2015 on its merit.
Learned counsels for the respective parties undertake to
appear before the learned appellate Court on 18.09.2023.
[2023:RJ-JP:21469] (4 of 4) [CR-147/2016]
In view of life of the appeal, the learned appellate Court is
requested to expedite its hearing.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/24
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
