2002 (12) TMI 621 - SC - Indian Laws

Applicability of Limitation Act 1963 - It is well-settled that by virtue of sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act the provisions of Section 12 are applicable for computing the period of limitation prescribed by any special or local law. So far as the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned the power of the Court to extend the prescribed period of limitation on the ground of availability of sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, stands circumscribed by the limitation imposed on the power of the High Court by the proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of High Court regarding limitation period for filing revision petitions under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960.

Analysis:
The judgment dealt with appeals challenging an order of the High Court regarding the filing of two civil revisions under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960. The High Court had condoned the delay in filing the revision petitions, subject to payment of costs. The key issue revolved around the computation of the limitation period for filing the revisions.

The facts revealed that the appellate order was passed on 25.9.2001, and the certified copy was obtained on 24.12.2001. The revisions were filed on 2.1.2002. The High Court held that the delay in obtaining the certified copy was justified, and the time lost during this period was excluded from the limitation calculation.

The period of limitation for filing a revision in the High Court was 30 days from the date of the impugned order. It was crucial to determine whether the time taken to obtain the certified copy should be excluded from the limitation period calculation.

The judgment delved into the application of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, emphasizing the importance of excluding the time required for obtaining a copy of the order from the limitation period. The Court highlighted that the purpose of such provisions was to enable litigants to effectively pursue their remedies without being unduly restricted by time-bar constraints.

Regarding the power to condone delay, the Court clarified that it could be exercised for periods both before and after obtaining the certified copy of the order. The judgment referenced precedents from the Bombay and Madras High Courts to support the exclusion of time required for obtaining a copy in computing the limitation period.

The Court rejected the argument that the time taken to obtain a copy before the limitation period should not be excluded. It emphasized that the time requisite for obtaining a copy should be excluded irrespective of when the application was made.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the High Court's decision to condone the delay in filing the revision petitions, as the total time taken did not exceed the prescribed limitation period. The appeals were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.