9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 621X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. - Appeal (civil) 8548-8549 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 18-12-2002 - R.C. LAHOTI BRIJESH KUMAR,J.J JUDGMENT 2002 Supp(5) SCR 522 The Judgment was delivered by R.C. LAHOTI, J. RESPONDENT:KISHAN N.LALWANI Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave lay challenge to an order of the High Court whereby two civil revisions filed by the respondent herein under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter, 'the Tamil Nadu Act', for short) feeling aggrieved by a common order disposing of two appeals, have been held to have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of 60 days. 5. Sub-Section (2) of Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Act provides that every application to the High Court for the exercise of its revisional power shall be preferred within one month from the date on which the impugned order is communicated to the applicant 'provided that the High Court may, in its discretion, allow further time not exceeding one month for the filing of any such application, if it is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application within the time specified , i.e. one month. 6. Sub-Section (2) of Section 12 and sub-Section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act 1963 are relevant which are reproduced hereunder:- 12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same time full effect should also be given to those provisions which permit extension or relaxation in computing period of limitation such as those contained in Section 12 of the Limitation Act. The underlying purpose of these provisions is to enable a litigant seeking enforcement of his right to any remedy to do so effectively and harsh prescription of time-bar not unduly interfering with the exercise of statutory rights and remedies. That is why Section 12 has always been liberally interpreted. To wit, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the impugned decree, sentence or order has been held liable to be excluded from computing the period of limitation although such copy may not necessarily be required to be filed along with appeal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other words, as we have put it hereinabove, the time requisite for obtaining the copy being added to the prescribed period of limitation and treating the result of addition as the period prescribed. In adopting this methodology it does not make any difference whether the application for certified copy was made within the prescribed period of limitation or beyond it. Neither it is so provided in sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Limitation Act nor in principle we find any reason or logic for taking such a view. 8. If we were to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant yet another consequence would follow. Section 5 of the Limitation Act or the power to condone delay by reference to proviso appended to Section 25(2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tful agreement with the review so taken by the Full Benches of Bombay and Madras High Courts. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of this Court in A.D. Partha Sarthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh - 1966 AIR(SC) 38. The facts of the case show that an application for obtaining certified copy of the relevant order was made even before the order was pronounced. The question arising for decision before the Court was whether the time between the date of the application and the date of the pronouncement of the impugned order could be treated as the time requisite within the meaning of Section 12(2) of Limitation Act. The Court ruled against the exclusion of such time. The time running between the date of application ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the Legislature itself has chosen not to provide and thereby scuttle the operation of Section 12(2) abovesaid. We are clearly of the opinion that while computing the period of limitation the time requisite for obtaining the copy has to be excluded without regard to the fact whether the copy was applied for before the expiry of period of limitation or not. 11. 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 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
