Ram Narayan Prasad and ors. Vs. Satish Chandra Gupta and ors.

.....extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - 1 died on 10.6.1994 due to falling into the well. judicial commissioner after considering the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that petitioners..........taken possession of the property from the petitioners.4. the case of the opposite parties as stated in the show cause is that they have not taken any article left by the deceased who died in the house of the opposite parties. as a matter of fact, in 1981 petitioner no. 1 filed divorce case against his deceased wife usha gupta making false allegation of theft of jewellery and some other articles against his wife. the opposite parties totally denied each and every allegation made in the petition.5. learned addl. judicial commissioner after considering the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that petitioners have failed to prove that property left by the deceased was forcibly taken possession by the opposite parties. the court is also of the view that the misc. case is not maintainable and the same is also barred by law of limitation.6. the provision of section 192 of the indian succession act, 1925 entitles a person claiming right by succession to property left by the deceased to make an application to the district judge of the district where any part of the property is found or situate for relief of possession of the property if actually possession has been taken by another person, or where forcible means of seizing possession are apprehended. the said provisions can, however, to be invoked only when property of the deceased is in wrongful possession of some other persons. section 192 to 194 of the said act will not apply to a case where joint family property passes by survivorship. summary remedy is provided under the aforesaid provisions which can be availed for possession of property when remedy under ordinary law will cause unnecessary delay and will not serve the purpose. in the instant case from the finding recorded by the additional judicial commissioner, it appears that the allegation taking possession of the property by the opposite parties has been seriously denied and disputed by the opposite parties. moreover, parties are at.....