Art.137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies only to applications under the Civil Procedure Code, as influenced by judicial opinions and legislative amendments.

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been referred to the Division Bench, as it raises a question of limitation under Art.137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In respect of telegraph lines taken by the petitioner, the Kerala State Electricity Board, over the property of the respondent, a sum of Rs. 1708-55 was paid on 30-4-68 as compensation for the damages caused, under S.10(d) of the Indian Telegraph Act. 1885 read with S.Si of the Indian Electricity Act. The Respondent applied on 11-6-71 to the District Judge, claiming enhanced compensation. This was under S.16(3) of the Telegraph Act which provides that any dispute concerning the sufficiency of the compensation to be paid under S.10(d) shall, on application for that purpose, by either of the disputing parties, to the District Judge within whose jurisdiction the property is situate, be determined by him. Objection was raised that the application having been filed more than three years from the payment of the amount, was barred by limitation under Art.137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which reads:

The objection was disallowed by the District Judge by the order sought to be revised.

2. It was conceded before us that the District Judge acting under S.16 (3) of the Telegraph Act, acts as a Court. To that effect is also the decision of Viswanatha Iyer, J. in 1973 KLT. 968.

3.Art.181 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 is the pre-cursor of Art.137 of the 1963 Act. That Article read:

With respect to this Article, there was fair consensus of judicial opinion that it contemplated only applications made under the Civil Procedure Code to a court. This is referred to, although the point was not decided, by the Privy Council in Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidator, Dehra Dun Mussoorie Electric Tramway Co. (AIR. 1933 PC. 63). The reason for this view was that all the applications provided under the Third Division of the First Schedule of the 1908 Act, viz. from Art.158 to 183 dealt with applications under the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, on the principle of ejusdem generis, Art.181 should also have a similar content and bear a similar interpretation. In 1940, after the passing of the Indian Arbitration Act of that year, Art.158 and 178 were amended providing for periods of limitation even in respect of applications under the Arbitration Act, 1940. Consequent on the amendments so introduced, it was felt that the reason for giving a restricted content to Art.181 of the Act was no longer available. The argument was advanced before the Supreme Court in Sha Mulchandand Co. Ltd. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd (AIR. 1953 SC. 98) and was with thus:

"It does not appear to us quite convincing, without further argument, that the mere amendment of Art.158 and 178 can'ipso facto' alter the meaning which, as a result of a long series of judicial decisions of the different High Courts in India, came to be attached to the language used in Art.181. This long catena of decisions may well be said to have, as it were, added the words "under the Code" in the first column of that Article. If those words bad actually been used in that column then a subsequent amendment of Art.158 and 178 certainly would not have affected the meaning of that Article. If, however, as a result of judicial construction, those words have come to be read into the first column as if those words actually occurred therein, we are not of opinion, as at present advised, that the subsequent amendment of Art.158 and 178 must necessarily and automatically have the effect of altering the long acquired meaning of Art.181 on the sole and simple ground that after the amendment the reason on which the old construction was founded is no longer available."

No final opinion was, however, expressed by the Court, as it was found that even if Art.181 was attracted, the application was still within time. In Bombay Gas Co Ltd. v. Gopal Bhiva (AIR. 1964 SC. 752) the Supreme Court stated that it is well settled that Art.181 applied only to applications made u