The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds, and the Limitation Act must be applied with all its rigour when the statute prescribes.

ORDER

1. These Special Leave Petitions, filed by the Petitioners are against the impugned judgment and order dated 14th May, 2018 passed by the Gauhati High Court allowing the Civil Revisional Petition being CRP No. 12 of 2011 and setting aside an order dated 25th October, 2011 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl in CM. Application No. 104/2011 whereby the Court of Senior Civil Judge had condoned the delay of 322 days in filing Money Suit No.60/2011.

2. The short question in this Special Leave Petition is, whether the Court can condone the delay in filing a money suit seeking compensation for stones extracted by the concerned Respondents, from the land of the Petitioners, for the construction of a public road.

3. The Petitioner No.1, a resident of the State of Mizoram, belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, was alloted land bearing Village Council Pass No. 120 of 1981, which was later converted into Periodic Patta. Similarly, the Petitioner No. 2, also a resident of Mizoram belonging to the Scheduled Tribe was alloted land bearing Garden Pass No. 170 of 1980. Both the passes were renewed from time to time and are according to the Petitioners, subsisting till date.

4. Some time in the year 2001, the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were issued Quarry Permit No. 023 dated 25.03.2001 and Quarry Permit No. 026 dated 03.04.2001, respectively, in respect of their respective plots of land.

5. It is the case of the Petitioners that some time in the year 2002, the Chief Engineer of the Project Pushpak, Mizoram, requested the Petitioners to allow the Respondents to quarry stones from the land covered from the said passes, for the purpose of construction of the Hnahthial-Sangau-Saiha road. The road was being constructed by the Respondent No. 1-Union of India, through its Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.

6. It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners had verbally been requesting the Respondents for compensation for the stones removed from their land. It appears that on 20.04.2004, the Commanding Officer of the road construction issued a letter to the Petitioners stating that any application for compensation had to be made to the Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram.

7. It is also the case of the Petitioners that on 30.04.2007, the Petitioners submitted an application to the District Commissioner, Lunglei, District Lunglei, for assessment of the value of the stones removed from their land, and payment of compensation.

8. The Petitioners contend that as per the PWD Schedule of Rates, the value of the stones extracted from the quarry of the Petitioners was to the tune of Rs. 40,43,000/- and Rs. 1,10,11,200/-, respectively.

9. On 04.11.2009, the Petitioners served legal notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code upon the Respondents calling upon them to compensate the Petitioners for the stones extracted.

10. On 25.01.2011, the Petitioners filed a Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 04/2010 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge-03, Aizawl District, Mizoram seeking compensation. The Respondents, however, made an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of the plaint, solely on the ground of limitation. The application was allowed and the said Civil Suit bearing No. 04/2010 was rejected.

11. On or about 24.05.2011, the Petitioners filed Money Suit No. 60/2011 along with an application being CM. Application No. 104/2011 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 325 days in filing the said suit.

12. By an order dated 25.10.2011, the Civil Judge allowed the said application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with the observation that there was no denial of the fact that the Respondents had extracted stones from the land of the Petitioners, and were making abortive attempts to avoid the payment of compensation to the poor and ignorant Petitioners. The Civil Judge also observed that the issue of whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to t