2002 Supreme(SC) 1271

2003(1) Supreme 12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
R.C. Lahoti & Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
M/s. India House -Appellant
versus
Kishan N. Lalwani -Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 8548-8549 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 15656-15657/2002)
Decided on 18-12-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : V. Prabhakar and M.K.D. Namboodiri, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P.S. Narasimha, Ananga Bhattacharya, Sridhar P., Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
While computing the period of limitation the time requisite for obtaining the certified copy has to be excluded without regard to the fact whether the copy was required or not and whether copy was applied before the expiry of period of limitation or not.

Headnote:Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent) Control Act, 1960-Section 25 -Revision against appellate order-Limitation of one month from the date on which the impugned order is communicated to the applicant-High Court given power to extend time not exceeding one month if sufficient cause is shown-Limitation Act, 1963 -Sections 5, 12(2) and 29(2)-Exclusion of time taken in certified copy-Applicable to limitation under special or local law like rent control-Certified copy applied after expiry of limitation-Revision filed within a period of 53 days, excluding time taken to obtain certified copy-High Court condoning delay-Appeals against-Whether High Court was right? (Yes)-Result-Appeals dismissed.

       Held : It is well-settled that by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Limitation Act the provisions of Section 12 are applicable for computing the period of limitation prescribed by any special or local law (See D.P. Mishra vs. Kamal Narayan Sharma and Anr. - (1970) 2 SCC 369 and Malojirao Narsinghrao vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh - (1969) 2 SCC 723). The period of limitation statutorily prescribed has to be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed or departed from for equitable considerations. At the same time full effect should also be given to those provisions which permit extention 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, application or memo of representation or review. No distinction is drawn between decrees or orders pronounced on the original side or the appellate or revisional side. No application is required to be made seeking the benefit of Section 12 of Limitation Act : it is the statutory obligation of the Court to extend the benefit where available. (Para 7)

       Held also : 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. (Para 10)

       Held thereafter : 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 Court by the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. The discretionary power to condone the delay in filing the revision can be exercised for condoning any delay which does not exceed one month over and above the period liable to excluded from computing the period of limitation by reference to Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. Computing the time within which the revisions were filed in the High Court, consistently with the law as stated hereinabove, the revisions by the respondent were filed within a period of 53 days. As the total time, excluding the time requisite for obtaining the copy, does not exceed 60 days, the High Court had power to condone the delay in filing the revision petitions. No fault can be found with the discretionary jurisdiction so exercised by the High Court. (Paras 11 and 12)

       Held finally : The appeals are held devoid of any merit and are dismissed costs easy. (Para 13)