IMPORTANT POINT
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable to section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

Judgment :

V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.

Civil Appeal No.3498 of 2008 arises out of order dated 30.6.2005 in C.R.No.1330 of 2003 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur relying on the judgment and order dated 13.4.2005 passed by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.R.No.633 of 2003 etc. The connected Civil Appeal No.1145 of 2009 arises out of judgment and order dated 4.7.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in C.R.No.1 of 2006.

2. Civil Appeal No.3498 of 2008 was heard by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein by way of judgment dated 12.05.2008, it was opined that the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Company, 2004 (II) MPJR SN 55 was not correctly decided and, thus, the matter required consideration by a larger bench. It was further opined that the record of the case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench. That is how this matter has come up for consideration before us.

3. As both the appeals are identical, for the sake of convenience, we would refer to the necessary facts of C.A.No.3498 of 2008 which are stated hereunder:

The respondent filed a petition under Section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1983”) raising certain claims about the works contract executed between the parties. The petition was partly allowed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal vide its award dated 18.6.2003. An amount of Rs.6,05,624/- with interest @12% per annum was awarded from 24.04.1998 till the date of realisation.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed a Civil Revision No.1330 of 2003 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Section 19 of the Act of 1983, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “Limitation Act”) to condone the delay in filing the revision.

5. The High Court observed in its order dated 07.05.2004 in the Revision that the view expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena v. Agrawal Construction Company, 2004 MLJ 374 required consideration by a larger Bench on the question of:

Whether Provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to revision filed under Section 19 in the High Court?”

6. After the reference was made, the matter in Nagarpalika Parishad, Morena (supra) came up for consideration before a division bench of this Court. While dismissing the petition at the threshold, it was observed in an order dated 27.08.2004 [2004(II) MPJR SN 374] :

“……In our view there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The authority in the case of Nasiruddin and Ors. v. Sita Ram Agarwal (2003) 2 SCC 577 has been correctly followed. Same view has also been taken by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. (2001) 8 SCC 470.

The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.”

7. The full bench of the High Court in the order dated 13.04.2005, held that the dismissal of a special leave petition at the threshold stage by the Supreme Court is a binding precedent, and must be followed by the courts below. It was however also observed that no specific time limit can be fixed for exercising the suo motu revisional power under Section 19 of the Act of 1983. It was further held that the power has to be exercised within reasonable time which depends upon the nature of the order to be revised and other facts and circumstances of the case. The full bench of the High Court directed to place the revision petition before the appropriate bench for consideration in accordance with law.

8. The Civil Revision No. 1330 of 2003 which was barred by time of 80 days was dismissed by the High Court for the reasons given by the Full Bench in its order dated 13.04.2005.

9. Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the appellants filed a special leave petition before this