9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. 2. Interpretation of Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 3. Comparison with precedents set in Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality and Hukumdev Narain v. Lalit Narain Mishra. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to Appeals Filed Under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: The court had to determine whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for the condonation of delays, applies to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976. The appellant's counsel argued that Section 5 should apply because Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963, are expressly made applicable by Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The respondent's counsel contended that the specific limitation of thirty days prescribed in Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, excluded the applicability of Section 5 by virtue of Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 2. Interpretation of Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, states: "Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order." The court examined whether this provision, by its language, excluded the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court noted that the mere provision of a period of limitation, even in peremptory or imperative language, is not sufficient to displace the applicability of Section 5, unless there is an express exclusion. 3. Comparison with Precedents: The court referred to two significant precedents: - Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality (AIR 1976 SC 105): The Supreme Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applied to an application for special leave made under Section 417(3) of the Cr. P. C. 1898, despite the mandatory language of Sub-section (4) of Section 417. The court emphasized that the mere provision of a period of limitation, in however peremptory or imperative language, does not exclude the applicability of Section 5. - Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra (AIR 1974 SC 480): The Supreme Court held that the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was necessarily excluded by the scheme of the special law. The court examined whether the special law was a complete code in itself, which would exclude the applicability of the Limitation Act. The court found that the decision in Mangu Ram's case was more directly applicable to the present case. The nature of the right of appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the scheme of the special law were not inconsistent with the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Conclusion: The court concluded that the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is not excluded since there is no such exclusion as contemplated by Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The question of whether the delay in filing such an appeal should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is a matter of fact to be decided based on the circumstances of each case.
|
