Judgment

RAY C.J.I.:- This appeal is by special leave from the judgment dated 3 June, 1974 of the High Court of Kerala.

2. The respondent filed a petition under Sections 10 and 16 (5) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act 1910 claiming compensation against the appellant.

3. The Kerala State Electricity Board is constituted under Section 5 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Board cut and removed some trees standing on the property of the respondent for the purpose of laying electric line from Calicut to Cannanore. The Board assessed the compensation at Rupees 1619.90.

4. On 10 March, 1972 the respondent filed a petition before the District Judge, Tellicherry under Section 16 (3) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 claiming an enhanced compensation of Rs. 19,367.60 The Board raised several objections. One of the objections was that the petition was barred by time under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Board contended that the notice intimating the fixing of the compensation was served on 4 March, 1969 and therefore the petition was barred by time. The respondent contended that Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act did not apply to applications to the District Judge under the Indian Telegraph Act. The District Judge held that the application was governed by Article 137 of the 1963 Limitation Act, and, therefore, the petition was filed beyond three years and was barred by time.

5. The respondent filed revision petitions to the High Court of Kerala. The respondent also applied for condonation of delay in filing the revision petitions in the High Court. The High Court condoned the delay in filing the petitions. The High Court in view of the decision of the High Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Parvathi Amma, ILR (1973) 2 Ker 524 set aside the order of the District Judge and remitted the matter back to the court for disposal in accordance with law.

6. The provision contained in Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 is as follows:-

Description of application. Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run.

Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Division. 3 Years When the right to apply accrues.

7. The view of the Kerala High Court is that Article 137 of the Limitation Act 1963 has the same meaning as Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908.

8. Article 181 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was as follows:-

Description of application. Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run.

Applications for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this schedule or by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Three years. When the right to appeal accrues.

9. In the Kerala State Electricity Board case (AIR 1974 Ker 202) (supra) the High Court held that in view of the decision of this Court in Town Municipal Council, Athani v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Hubli, (1970) 1 SCR 51 the same construction should be put upon Article 137 as had been put upon Art. 181. In the Athani Municipal Council case (supra) the workmen applied to the Labour Court under Sec. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act for computation of benefit in respect of over time. The Labour Court accepted the application of the workmen. The Athani Municipal Couil challenged the decision of the Labour Court in a writ petition. On appeal to this Court it was contended that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred by the provisions of Minimum Wages Act 1948 and second the applications to the Labour Court were time barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Court held as follows: The alteration in the 1963 Limitation Act in Article 137, namely, the inclusion of the words "other proceedings" in the long title to the 1963 Limitation Act, the omission of the preamble and the change in the definition so as to include petition in the word "application" do not show any intention to make Article 137 applicable