9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (6) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation for suits, appeals and applications. The Act also lays down in Sections 4 to 24 the general principles for determination of the period of limitation for suits, appeals and applications. They relate to the powers of the court to extend, exclude and compute the period of limitation. If on determining the period of limitation it is found that the suit, appeal or application is filed, preferred or made after the period of the limitation prescribed, the court should dismiss it. In the case of appeals and certain applications a power (under Section 5) is given to the court to condone delay also. These general principles of limitation and the period of limitation are applicable to proceedings in Court in general. But rights, remedies and periods of limitation are provided for and prescribed under various special or local laws also. It is not possible to provide in the Limitation Act for periods of limitation for all types of actions under special law and a repetition of all the general provisions for determining the period of limitation prescribed under special or local laws in these laws will make them cumbersome. Therefore the Legislature has enacted in the Limitation Act itself a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicate the rights of parties arising under the special law. That is not the intention of the legislature. 4. Tribunals are very often given powers which are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 23 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, is an instance of this type. In the same manner when the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are made applicable to proceedings under special laws what is done is that the deciding authorities under the special law are given the power of the court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. These deciding authorities may or may not be courts. This, according to me, is the principle on which the provisions of the Limitation Act are made applicable to proceedings under the various special laws. A conclusion that the proceeding under the special law should be before ordinary (civil and criminal) courts alone in order that the provision of Section 5 can be applied is not warranted by the provisions of the various special laws and the Limitation Act. 5. If the terms of Section 5 are applicable only to courts, by the same terms they can apply only to cases where the Limitat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the special laws. An express mention in the special law is necessary only for any exclusion. It is on this basis that when the new Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act was passed in 1965 the provision contained in old Section 31 was omitted. So, according to me, the provisions contained in Section 5 of the new Limitation Act applies to this case by the force of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. 8. It is further argued that Section 18 of the Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 contains a provision to exclude the time necessary to obtain a certified copy of the order for appeal and that therefore the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable. This is incorrect. What is required under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act is an express exclusion of any of the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act for the determination of the period of limitation under the special law. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not excluded by any provision of the Rent Control Act and so by force of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act it applies to the proceeding in this case. 9. What I have said about the applicability of Section 5 appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 5 it is only a court which is enabled to admit an application after the prescribed period has expired if the court is satisfied that the applicant had sufficient cause for not preferring the application. It seems to us that the scheme of the Indian Limitation Act is that it only deals With applications to courts, and that the Labour Court is not a court within the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. In this decision the correctness of the earlier decision in was questioned and regarding that their Lordships observed thus:-- It is not necessary to express our views on the first ground given by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 170 to 173 of 1968, D/-20-3-1969 = . It seems to us that it may require serious consideration whether applications to courts under other provisions, apart from Civil Procedure Code, are included within Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, or not. 12. These two decisions relate to, as I said earlier, the applicability of Article 137 to proceedings before the Labour Court. The Supreme Court has held that Article 137 could apply only to applications in courts and not to proceedings before Labour Courts. In the present case none of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order appealed against shall be excluded . The predecessor Act, namely the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959, contained a section -- Section 31 which read:-- 31. Application of the Limitation Act: the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 (9 of 1908), shall apply to all proceedings under this Act. No such section or provision is found in the 1965 Act. Counsel for the petitioners would have it that this was in view of the replacement of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 by the Act of 1963 and the changes in the scope and the operation of the latter Act. Our attention was called to long title of the Limitation Act of 1963, as compared to its predecessor Act 1908, and to the changed wording of Section 29(2) in the two enactments. The long title evidences an intention to apply the Act to suits and other proceedings; and Section 29(2) enacts a significant change. Whereas under the provisions of the said Section in the 1908 Act Section 5 of the Limitation Act would not apply unless made expressly applicable, the 1963 Act provides that Section 5 (among others) would apply to the provisions of any special or local law unless the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apply even to applications made to an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court. The alterations made in the articles and in the new Act cannot, in our opinion justify the interpretation that even applications presented to bodies, other than courts, are now to be governed for purposes of Limitation by Article 137. 12. ..... Under the old limitation Act, no doubt, the long title was An Act to consolidate and amend the law for the Limitation of Suits and for other purposes , while, in the new Act of 1963, the long title is An Act to consolidate and amend the law for the limitation of suits and other proceedings and for purposes connected therewith. In the long title, thus the words other proceedings have been added; but we do not think that this addition necessarily implies that the Limitation Act is intended to govern proceedings before any authority, whether executive or quasi-judicial, when, earlier, the old Act was intended to govern proceedings before civil courts only. It is also true that the preamble which existed in the old Limitation Act of 1908 has been omitted in the new Act of 1963. The omission of the preamble does not, however, indicate that there was any in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
