Jayachandra Reddy, J.:-
(1) 1. This is an application under section 5 of the indian limitation act, 1963, to condone the delay of fifteen days in filing a civil revision petition under section 91 of the andhra pradesh (telangana area) tenancy and agricultural lands act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as "the act", to which the period of limitation prescribed under section 93 applies. Feeling that there is conflict ot judgments concerning this question, our learned brother, reghuvir, j. , referred the matter to a division bench. That is how this petition has come up before us.
(2) Sri g. Ramakrishnaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner, says that section 5 of the indian limitation act, does apply to matters that arise under the act by virtue of sub - section (2) of section 29 of the indian limitation act, 1963, and consequently his application under section 5 for condonation of delay of fifteen days in preferring the revision is mintainable. To this sri pratap reddy demurs.
(3) Before we read what sub - section (2) of section 29 says, ic is necessary to examine section 93 of the act which prescribes the period of limitation for appeals and revisions. It is in the following terms;
"every appeal and every application for revision under this act shall be filed within sixty days from the date of the order against which the appeal or application is filed and the provisions of the indian limitation act, 1908 shall apply for the purposes of the computation of the said period."
(4) So this section by itself makes the provisions of the indian limitation act of 1908 applicable to appeals and revisions under the act only for the purpose of computation of the said period. There is quite a large volume of judicial pronounrements of this court on this aspect. They are: syed sharfuddin vs. Andrews (i) (1964) i. An. W. R. 171 girija bai vs. Jaiwanta (2) (1966) ii. An. W. R. 42 sivakumar vs. Sivaiah (3) a. I. R. 1966 a. P. 14 ranganayakulu vs veeraiah (4) (1968) ii. An. W. R. 158 and narsanna vs. Nagappa (5). (1974) ii. A. P. L j. 30 (short notes of recent cases) excepting the decision in siva. Kumar's case (3> a. I. R. 1966 a. P. L 4 ail the others are decisions rendered by learned single judges. That alone is a decision of a division bench. On an examination of all these decisions, we find they have not considered the scope of section 29 (2) of the limitation act, 1963, and its impact on appeals and revision petitions under the act. All of them, excepting the bench decision, were obviously considering the only question whether section 5 of the old limitation act would apply to appeals and revision applications under the act as per the provisions of the limitation act of 1508.
(5) However, there is a significant change in the material provisions of the limitation act of 1908 and that of 1963. sub - section (2) of section 29 of the 1908 act says:
"where any 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 any special or local law; (a) the
provisions contained in section 4, sections 9 to 18 and section 22 shall apply only in so far as and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law: and (b) the remaining provisions of this act shall not apply."
(6) It is immediately seen that section 5 of the 1908 act was not made applicable and in fact expressly excluded from application to suits, appeals or applications under any special or local law. That is why all the previous decisions hold that section 5 had no application to appeals and revision petitions under the act.
(7) Now in the new act, sub - section (2) of section 29 makes a very substantial departure. It lays down:
"where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the schedule, the
provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law."
(8) It may be noted that sections 4 to 24 of the 1963 act are made applicable to suits, appeals or applications under any special or local law in so far as and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Unlike section 29 (2) of the old act of 1908 which clearly excluded the application of section 5 to such matters, the corresponding provision in the 1963 act makes section 5; and, in fact sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) , applicable to such matters unless they are expressly excluded by such special or local law.
(9) Then the point to be considered is whether there is any express exclusion of the application of section 5 to suits, appeals or applications. We have already referred to section 93 in its entirety. It merely says that the provisions of the limitation act of 1908 shall apply for the purpose of computation of the said period there is no exclusion, much less an express exclusion, as required by section. 29 (2) of the application of section 5 to appeals and revision petitions. Therefore, by the language of section 93 of the act and section 29 (2) of the limitation act of 963. It is quite manifest that section 5 of the limitation act is applicable to appeals and revision petitions under the act.
(10) We may here refer to the bench decision in slvakumar's case (8) a. I. R. 1966 a p. 14. We may immediately point out that the appllcability of section 29 (2) , its scope and its impact on section 93 of the act was not questioned before the division bench. The only question was the scops and applicability of section 31 (b) of the new limitation act, to a suit, appeal or application under the act. It was held:
"under clause (b) of s. 31 of the act a suit, appeal or application, which had been filed before the coming into force of the act but which was pending when the act came into force would not attract section 5 of the limitation act. Benefit