Bhaskar Bhattacharya, C.J.

1. All these References were taken up for hearing together as the same question of law as formulated below has been referred before this Bench by the learned single Judge in all the Special Civil Applications:

"In absence of specific exclusion of applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 [Act, 1963] in Bombay Stamp Act, application under Section 53 of the Act, 1958 [Act, 1958] whether delay in filing appeal/application under Section 53 of the Act, 1958 beyond the prescribed time limit of within 90 days from the date of passing the order by the Collector/competent authority could be condoned by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Appellate Authority or the High Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the case may be by taking recourse to Sections 3, 5 and 29 of the Act, 1963?"

1.1 It appears that before the learned single Judge, the petitioners challenged the orders passed by the authority under section 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 ["the Act" for short] by which, the said authority, viz. the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority refused to condone the delay in filing the proceedings on the ground that those were not filed within 90 days from the date of order passed by the competent authority because of lack of power of such authority to condone the delay. In some of the Special Civil Applications, the initial or the basic order passed by the competent authority has also been challenged. Consequently, the aforesaid question was referred by the learned single Judge in view of some conflicting decisions of the learned Judges of this Court. Hence, these References.

In order to appreciate the aforesaid question, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions contained in sections 3, 5 and 29 of the Limitation Act and also the provisions contained in sections 53, 54, 55 and 57 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.

Sections 3, 5 and 29 of Limitation Act

3. Bar of limitation.--[1] Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 [inclusive], every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.

2. For the purposes of this Act--

[a] a suit is instituted-

[i] in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer;

[ii] in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and

[iii] in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator;

[b] any claim by way of a set-off or a counter-claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted--

[i] in the case of a set-off, on the same date as the suit in which the set-off is pleaded;

[ii] in the case of a counter-claim, on the date on which the counter-claim is made in court;

[c] an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that court.

xxx xxx xxx

5. Extension of prescribed period in certain cases.--Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [5 of 1908], may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

Explanation.--The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.

xxx xxx xxx

29. Savings.--[1] Nothing in this Act shall affect section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 [9 of 1872].

[2] 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