K. James vs V. Ponniah

The respondent in I.A No.389 of 1971 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Nagarcoil, is the petitioner. The revision petition is directed

against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in I.A. No.389 of 1971 allowing the application I.A No 389 of 1971 filed u/s 5 of the

Limitation Act, 36 of 1963, seeking to excuse the delay in filing the appeal against the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 17-7-1969

u/s 9(3) of the Kanyakumari Sreepandaravaka Lands (Abolition and Conversion into Ryothwari) Act,31 of 1964, prescribing a period of three

months for filing such appeals with a discretion to the Tribunal to extend the period by two months. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the Act 31 of 1964 must be deemed to be a complete enactment dealing with the grant of roytwari patta and that the provision

relating thereto and the Act not having provided an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act the application u/s 9 of the Act is in applicable. In other

words. the contention is that the Act is a self-contained enactment. The period for filing an appeal having been provided by Section 9(3), no further

application for extension of time by reason of Section 5 should be made. The Limitation Act, 36 of 1963, came into operation on 1-1-1964.

Section 29(2) of the said Act runs as follow-

Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the

Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining

any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Section 4 to 24

(inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.

It is common ground that there is no provision in Madras Act 31 of 1964, expressly excluding the Limitation Act to applications and appeals

provided under the said Act. I am, therefore, of the view that in the absence of any specific exclusion, Section 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act shall

apply to applications and appeals under the special law unless there is any provision in the special enactment repugnant to such application. The

conclusion of the learned Subordinate Judge, is therefore, right. I may in this connection refer to a few decisions, one in the The Trustees of the

Port of Madras Vs. Mettur Chemical and Industries Limited, arising under the Madras Port Trust Act and another of the Supreme Court in D.P.

Mishra Vs. Kamal Narayan Sharma and Another, , arising under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and of the Bombay High Court in

Radheshaym Mohanlal Kaitan Vs. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Nagpur and Others, , arising under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural

Lands Act, 1958.There is no merit in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision petition, therefore, fails and is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.