TMI Blog1978 (5) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1%3 to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, by virtue of Sub-section, (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In reply, Shri A.K. Khaskalam, learned counsel for the appellant, placed reliance on Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality AIR 1976 SC 105 to contend that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to such appeals, because provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) of the Limitation Act, 1963, are made expressly applicable by Sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and that there is no express exclusion of the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by the special Act, viz.Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as amended by Act No. 68 of 1976. Under the Limitation Act of 1908, Section 29 thereof did not expressly apply Section 5 of that Act as it did Section 4, Sections 9 to 18 and Section 22 of that Act unless they were expressly excluded by any special or local law, to a case where a different limitation was prescribed by any special or local law and it was also stated that the remaining provisions of that Act shall not apply to such cases. On the contrar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... than those contained in Sections 4 9 to 18 and 22, shall not apply and, therefore, the applicability of Section 5 was in clear and specific terms excluded. Section 29, Sub-section, (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 enacts in so many terms that for the purpose of determining the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24, which would include Section 5, shall apply in so far as and to the extent to which they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law. Section 29, Sub-section (2), Clause (b) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 specifically excluded the applicability of Section 5, while Section 29, Sub-section, (2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 in clear and unambiguous terms provided for the applicability of Section 5, Since under the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 is specifically made applicable by Section 29 Sub-section, (2), it can be availed of for the purpose of extending the period of limitation prescribed by a special or local law if the applicant can show that he had sufficient cause for not presenting the application within the period at limitation, It is only if the spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f these two decisions as under (at p. 1480):-- Following the decision in Vidyacharan Shukla's case this Court held, that Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act would apply, because There is no provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which excludes the application of Section 4 of the Limitation Act' . Thus, applicability of Sections 4 and 12 of the Limitation Act, both old as well as new, to an appeal filed under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was reiterated by their Lordships and they then proceeded to examine whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act would apply to an election petition filed under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in view of the nature of right and the scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, In this connection, their Lordships examined the scope of Section 5 and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, both old as well as new, and pointed out that the new Section 5 is now of wider applicability. On an examination of the scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it was held that the Act was a self-contained Code and the provisions thereof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheme of the special law, that is, in this case the Act, and the nature of the remedy provided therein are such that the Legislature intended it to be a complete code by itself which alone should govern the several matters provided by it. If on an examination of the relevant provisions it is clear that the provisions of the Limitation Act are necessarily excluded, then the benefits conferred therein cannot be called in aid to supplement the provisions of the Act, In our view, even in a case where the special law does not exclude the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act by an express reference, it would nonetheless be open to the Court to examine whether and to what extent the nature of those provisions or the nature of the subject matter and scheme of the special law exclude their operation......... Section 86 of the Act which gives a peremptory command that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of Sections 81 82 or 117. It will be seen that Section 81 is not the only section mentioned in Section 86, and if the Limitation Act were to apply to an election petition under Section 81 it should equally apply to Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot, therefore, be understood as laying down that merely because a different limitation is prescribed by a special or local law, that by itself is a sufficient reason to exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, Sub-section (4) of Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as introduced by Amendment Act No. 68 of 1976, reads as under:-- 28. Appeal from decrees and orders- XX XX XX (4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order. This is the only provision which is relied on by Shri Shroti to contend that Section S does not apply to appeals filed under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act. No other provision in the Hindu Marriage Act or the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1976 has been pointed out in support of this argument. In our opinion, the decision in Mangu Ram's case (AIR 1976 SC 105) (supra) is a complete answer to the argument of Shri Shroti inasmuch as it lays down that the mere provision of a period of limitation in howsoever peremptory or imperative language is not sufficient to displace th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
