9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court. That petition was not entertained by this Court on the ground that there were disputed questions of fact. However, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court observed that petitioners were at liberty to take such other legal steps as are advised. It is based on this order, that the suit under Section 6 came to be filed. Along with the suit the plaintiffs-respondents herein also moved an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period when the petition was pending before this Court. That came to be dismissed by an order dated 26-11-1992, on the ground that the suit against the defendant was not maintainable under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. That order was challenged before this Court by way of writ petition being Writ Petition No. 168/93. That petition came to be disposed of by the order of this Court dated 1st February, 2001. The order of the trial Court was set aside. The delay in filing the suit was condoned, to exclude the period when proceedings were pending before this Court. It is this order which is the subject-matter of the present review petition. 3. At the hearing of the petition, on behalf of the petitioners it is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... extent it is relevant. Section 6(1) and 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act read as under :-- Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property : (1) If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immovable property otherwise than in due course of law he or any person claiming through him may, by suit, recover possession thereof, notwithstanding any other title that may be set up in such suit. (2) No suit under this section shall be brought-- (a) after the expiry of six months from the date of dispossession; or (b) against the Government. It is, therefore, clear that no suit can be entertained which is filed after the expiry of six months' period from the date of dispossession. Considering that the issue is whether the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 can be filed beyond the period of six months set out in Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Reference may now be made to Section 14(1) and (2) of the Limitation Act which reads as under :-- Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction.-- (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gments cited to find out whether that issue stands concluded. The issue whether Section 14 would be attracted to the proceeding under Article 226 came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Rameshwarlal v. Municipal Council, Tonk (1996)6SCC100 . That was a suit filed by an employee of a Municipal Council on the ground that he was denied salary. The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the claim is recoverable by civil action and as such the discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is not exercisable. That order came to be confirmed by the Division Bench of that Court. A suit came to be filed. By then, the time to file the suit was beyond the period prescribed by the Limitation Act. Hence, application was made under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Apex Court when the matter came up for consideration, has held that normally for application of Section 14, the Court dealing with the matter in the first instance, which is the subject-matter in the later case, must be found to have lack of Jurisdiction or other cause of like nature to entertain the matter, however, as the High Court has declined to grant relief releg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be filed immediately after the proceedings came to a terminus, no doubt, after Issue of notice to the Government under Section 80, CPC and after expiry of 60 days' time required under Section 80, CPC. Under these circumstances, it must be concluded that in substance the suit is one under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act. Now considering the law whether the ratio of the judgment would be attracted. Let me advert to the contention raised on behalf of the review applicant by their learned counsel, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Padmasundara Rao (dead) v. State of T. N., [2002]255ITR147(SC) . A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court therein was considering judgments apparently in conflict on the interpretation of time to be considered for issuance of declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act or the declaration, being struck down. While so considering the Apex Court in para 8-A of the Judgment observed as under : Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact-situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The learned Judge has set out the history of the provisions of the old Specific Relief Act, the new Specific Relief Act as also the provisions pertaining to limitation. This can be seen from consideration of paragraph 8 of the judgment. After considering the judgments, the learned Judge held that the provisions of the Limitation Act would be applicable. Section 6, it was held, was a special law prescribing a period of limitation and considering that Section 29(2) would be attracted. It is no doubt considered on behalf of the petitioner in the review application, that Section 6 is not a provision for limitation. It is not possible to so accept that contention. Section 6 does not extinguish a right, it only provides a period of institution of a suit based on possession. Once that be the case, it is a provision of limitation for instituting a suit and Section 29(2) would be attracted. It would have been otherwise if it was considered to be a provision extinguishing a right. Learned counsel have also relied on some other judgments of the other High Courts. These really would be no aid in answering the issue, which have arisen here. To my mind, considerin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
