https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456804 Article 131 of the Limitation Act was held to run from the Magistrate's operative order in a criminal revision, not from a later refusal by the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate to make a reference, because that subordinate order is not the order under challenge. Time spent before the subordinate revisional forum was not excludable in computing the ninety-day period, as no statutory basis existed for extending limitation by practice. The High Court's revisional power under Section 439 remained available in exceptional cases to prevent injustice, and delay could be condoned where the litigant was misled by prevailing practice and acted diligently. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Aug 2024 17:26:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456804 Article 131 of the Limitation Act was held to run from the Magistrate's operative order in a criminal revision, not from a later refusal by the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate to make a reference, because that subordinate order is not the order under challenge. Time spent before the subordinate revisional forum was not excludable in computing the ninety-day period, as no statutory basis existed for extending limitation by practice. The High Court's revisional power under Section 439 remained available in exceptional cases to prevent injustice, and delay could be condoned where the litigant was misled by prevailing practice and acted diligently. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Dec 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456804